Denpressure and tides 2nd

In this case, the designers of an aircraft must know it's weight at high altitude to design for their service ceiling.

They only need to know it's weight at sea level in terms of structural safety under the highest friction of what the engines can operate at in lifting it and passengers/crew and baggage, as well as the overall structure into the air.
Once this critical point is achieved, they then need to check that cabin pressure does what it needs to do.
The higher the plane goes, the less friction it encounters  and the less push down it encounters.

Do you know what this means?
It means the plane effectively becomes a sky ocean speed boat with wings and it rides the sky waves.
Did they tell you any of this in the books?

I'll be happy to discuss it.

It is a very critical feature of aircraft design, with a critical point, highly dependent on weight,
          where if a plane flies any slower it stalls (very dependent on weight)
          and if it flies any faster it gets too close to the speed of sound with the resultant controllability issues.

It should really stall. I mean it's got a 1000 mph atmospheric wind kicking its arse, hasn't it?
I know rab, I know...you designed all the planes and you know what you're talking about and you absolutely didn't look up all of this stuff online to get a grip of it to appear you know exactly what you're talking about as a 100% truth, no matter what, because....?....because the books dictate and predict and speculate a mish mash that mixes into the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and do not question it all or you're a tin foil hat nut job.

The stalling speed of a plane rises with altitude as the air density falls and the speed of sound (Mach 1) falls with altitude as the temperature falls.

A point is reached where the two speeds meet. This known as "coffin corner" for the very good reason that hit that and the plane is uncontrollable and often cannot recover. The U-2 commonly flew just short of "coffin corner", and was very touchy to fly.

But, my whole point is that the ability to do these calculations is absolutely vital to modern engineering.

Calculations are vital to a lot of things. I don't deny this.
All I'm saying is, you do not need them to get a grasp of my thoughts. You only need then when you can't grasp what I'm saying and you do not want to appear stupid, so you go into calculation mode.


I do not need to have a professors mathematics genius degree to describe how to get a stuck bus that is trapped under a bridge.
I could shout you over and ask you what's required in maths and you could come up with as many equations and formulas for what's needed to free the bus.

I sit and explain that letting down the tyres just enough to see a gap appear above will get the bus free with as little damage as possible.


Now this is all I'm trying to do with people like you. I'm trying to explain how my thoughts work and doing it without the need for calculations and formulas.

If I want to tell you how much psi is required to be released from the tyres in order to see the gap, then we would have to go into the ins and outs of the actual tyre design,etc...but as you can see...it's not required to grasp this stuff.

Do you know what this means?
It means the plane effectively becomes a sky ocean speed boat with wings and it rides the sky waves.
Did they tell you any of this in the books?

No. They tend to stick to reality in "the books".

I'll be happy to discuss it.

Sure...
Until we point out an issue at which point you just insult us repeatedly rather than addressing the issue or admitting there is a problem.

It should really stall. I mean it's got a 1000 mph atmospheric wind kicking its arse, hasn't it?

Well no, in your model, it shouldn't stall because it weighs so much less, but in reality, they do.

Calculations are vital to a lot of things. I don't deny this.
All I'm saying is, you do not need them to get a grasp of my thoughts. You only need then when you can't grasp what I'm saying and you do not want to appear stupid, so you go into calculation mode.

No. When we can grasp your thoughts we go in to calculation mode to check it.
You need to avoid it because calculations show you to be completely wrong.

It has nothing to do with us trying to not look stupid.
If anything, you avoid the calculations so you can avoid looking stupid for suggesting something that was so blatantly wrong.

I sit and explain that letting down the tyres just enough to see a gap appear above will get the bus free with as little damage as possible.

Based upon the assumption that you can let it down that much.
That also ignores the possibility of structural damage to the bridge which could result in the bridge just collapsing and damaging the bus even further.

Now this is all I'm trying to do with people like you. I'm trying to explain how my thoughts work and doing it without the need for calculations and formulas.

NO! There is a need. A very important one.
This is because these calculations and formulas allow us to test your model.
And guess what? Your model fails.
That is why you need to ignore the calculations; because if you accept them, you would need to accept that your model fails.
So you do whatever you can to avoid them.

If I want to tell you how much psi is required to be released from the tyres in order to see the gap, then we would have to go into the ins and outs of the actual tyre design,etc...but as you can see...it's not required to grasp this stuff.

No. It isn't required to grasp this stuff, but it is quite useful for testing it and determining if it is true.

So which do you want to do? Talk about a model which has no relation to reality at all, or talk about a model which is meant to be able to explain a key part of how reality works?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 09, 2017, 07:34:38 PM

At sea level the atmospheric pressure is 14.70 psi and at an altitude of 40,000 ft and -55°F it is about 1.51 psi.
A fully loaded Boeing 747-8 weighs about 900,000 lbs at sea-level. 

What does it weigh at 40,000 ft and -55°F?

That should be an easy one!

First of all you are talking from a global perspective when you mention this and you need too understand where I'm coming from.

At 40,000 feet, all you can do is guess the weight of something that cannot be weighed, unless you have a scale on a sky hook. See where I'm going?
It's a question that has no relevance to anything. All you can do with it is imagine an answer based on that plane being under sea level atmospheric pressure and being able to be weighed on industrial scale plates.

The weight of an aircraft at 40,000 ft is extremely relevant to the designers of aircraft.

They can calculate it, why can't you if your theory is any good?

Now let me place another imaginary thought into your head.
Imagine the industrial scale plate was built atop of a 40,000 foot tower and the plane landed on it.
Could we measure the weight then?

I can imagine it easy enough and at an altitude of 10,000 ft it could easily be done.

The answer is, yes we could measure the weight but we have to measure the weight  from the basis of a reset scale plate, because the setting of a scale plate would be remarkable different when placed at that height and also the springs at that height would be under much different molecular bonding.
Basically speaking, the scale you place up top would be chalk and cheese to a scale at sea level...sooooo....can you see the issues here?

No, I can't "see the issues here" because all your so-called issues are imaginary.
Please explain why "the setting of a scale plate would be remarkably different when placed at that height and also the springs at that height would be under much different molecular bonding."
The only relevant changes would be due to temperature and that can easily be accounted.

But if that's too extreme you can drive to Tioga Pass, on the quite good road from Yosemite to Nevada, at 9,943 ft where the atmospheric pressure is about 10.13 psi. This should be different enough to see if atmospheric pressure has any effect on weight.

Please don't tell me that good quality scales will read differently up there!
And I will claim now that you could take a 5 lb "weight" up there and it will not change in weight by any measurable amount.

I mentioned Tioga Pass because I have been there a couple of times, but there are any number if high altitude roads in the USA, up to Mount Evans at 14,115 ft and Pikes Peak at 14,120 ft, both in Colorado. So you should have no trouble checking out your theory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

Do you know what this means?
It means the plane effectively becomes a sky ocean speed boat with wings and it rides the sky waves.
Did they tell you any of this in the books?

No. They tend to stick to reality in "the books".

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

I'll be happy to discuss it.

Sure...
Until we point out an issue at which point you just insult us repeatedly rather than addressing the issue or admitting there is a problem.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

It should really stall. I mean it's got a 1000 mph atmospheric wind kicking its arse, hasn't it?

Well no, in your model, it shouldn't stall because it weighs so much less, but in reality, they do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

Calculations are vital to a lot of things. I don't deny this.
All I'm saying is, you do not need them to get a grasp of my thoughts. You only need then when you can't grasp what I'm saying and you do not want to appear stupid, so you go into calculation mode.

No. When we can grasp your thoughts we go in to calculation mode to check it.
You need to avoid it because calculations show you to be completely wrong.

It has nothing to do with us trying to not look stupid.
If anything, you avoid the calculations so you can avoid looking stupid for suggesting something that was so blatantly wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

I sit and explain that letting down the tyres just enough to see a gap appear above will get the bus free with as little damage as possible.

Based upon the assumption that you can let it down that much.
That also ignores the possibility of structural damage to the bridge which could result in the bridge just collapsing and damaging the bus even further.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

Now this is all I'm trying to do with people like you. I'm trying to explain how my thoughts work and doing it without the need for calculations and formulas.

NO! There is a need. A very important one.
This is because these calculations and formulas allow us to test your model.
And guess what? Your model fails.
That is why you need to ignore the calculations; because if you accept them, you would need to accept that your model fails.
So you do whatever you can to avoid them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

If I want to tell you how much psi is required to be released from the tyres in order to see the gap, then we would have to go into the ins and outs of the actual tyre design,etc...but as you can see...it's not required to grasp this stuff.

No. It isn't required to grasp this stuff, but it is quite useful for testing it and determining if it is true.

So which do you want to do? Talk about a model which has no relation to reality at all, or talk about a model which is meant to be able to explain a key part of how reality works?

Can you grasp why I'm tending to overlook you?

The weight of an aircraft at 40,000 ft is extremely relevant to the designers of aircraft.
They can calculate it, why can't you if your theory is any good?

They can imagine what the calculation is, they cannot verify it because it cannot be weighed.

I can imagine it easy enough and at an altitude of 10,000 ft it could easily be done.

Tell me how it can be easily done?

No, I can't "see the issues here" because all your so-called issues are imaginary.
Please explain why "the setting of a scale plate would be remarkably different when placed at that height and also the springs at that height would be under much different molecular bonding."
The only relevant changes would be due to temperature and that can easily be accounted.

Because you've done all the tests and what not and you're such an expert.
Bollocks.
If you can't grasp what I've just told you then don't grasp it, but save the bullshit for someone that wants to smell it.

But if that's too extreme you can drive to Tioga Pass, on the quite good road from Yosemite to Nevada, at 9,943 ft where the atmospheric pressure is about 10.13 psi. This should be different enough to see if atmospheric pressure has any effect on weight.

And you've done this and tested, what?

Please don't tell me that good quality scales will read differently up there!
And I will claim now that you could take a 5 lb "weight" up there and it will not change in weight by any measurable amount.

Tell me why metals break in extreme cold. Also tell me why metals expand?

Now do this under two extremes.
1. Sea level atmospheric pressure. How they expand and how they contract.

2. In extreme low pressure. How they expand and how they contract.

You don't have to answer this you can just take heed of this: Scales will react differently at both levels whether you like it or not.

Now, considering weight is merely a man made measurement of the density of a mass (shove your gravity where your sun don't shine) and scales are primarily built at sea level or near, using all kinds of components and metals to measure  what we place upon them whether on the ground or hanging from a wall on a plate or hook.

They will malfunction under extreme conditions, whether subjected to extreme sea level expansion or contraction of their metals and certainly at altitude they will severely malfunction due to break down of the structure of the metals,

Don't pretend it wouldn't happen.

I mentioned Tioga Pass because I have been there a couple of times, but there are any number if high altitude roads in the USA, up to Mount Evans at 14,115 ft and Pikes Peak at 14,120 ft, both in Colorado. So you should have no trouble checking out your theory.

I'm in England, but regardless of that, little rabinoz has walked up a gradient in his little boots and woolly hat and gloves and done all kinds of non-experiments apart from farting and snotting his way up with a piss break and a short acclimatising meal break and breath back moment.

Stop boasting.
I once went to the top of the the sears tower and farted in the lift....so what.

Can you grasp why I'm tending to overlook you?

Yes, quite easily.
I have repeatedly shown your model to be flawed and you have no rational response for it.
So rather than act like a rational adult, you instead act like a child and try to ignore what has shown you to be wrong, so you can continue pretending that you are right.

Does that about sum it up?

If you disagree, then go back and read what I have said and provide a rational refutation of it.

Because you've done all the tests and what not and you're such an expert.
Bollocks.

I wouldn't say all, but I have done quite a few.

If you can't grasp what I've just told you then don't grasp it, but save the bullshit for someone that wants to smell it.

Again, the issue isn't grasping it. The issue is that we aren't just going to accept your bullshit.
You are the one spouting bullshit here. If you weren't, you would have easily been able to refute me, or at least acknowledged the massive problem.

Tell me why metals break in extreme cold. Also tell me why metals expand?

SOME metals become far more fragile in extreme cold, making them easier to break. This is because these particular metals undergo a phase transformation, typically a ductile to brittle phase transformation.
But not all metals do this.
As for why the expand, that is for the same reason the vast majority of things expand, due to heat.
As they take in energy and thus their internal energy increases, the atoms go to more excited vibrational energy levels.
This results in the molecules moving around more, forcing the structure apart.

Now do this under two extremes.
1. Sea level atmospheric pressure. How they expand and how they contract.

2. In extreme low pressure. How they expand and how they contract.

Changing the pressure doesn't change the mechanism unless you make it change phase such as lowering the pressure to boil water.


The linear coefficient of thermal expansion is typically on the order of 1E-6 or greater (e.g. 1E-5, typically 1e-5 for metals) per kelvin. That means an increase of 1 degree kelvin would make a 1 m rod grow at least 1e-6 m, or 1 um.
The young's modulus is typically measured in GPa, with metals typically being 10s or 100s. Atmospheric pressure is ~ 100 kPa. That means the strain for 1 atmosphere would be on the order of 1e-4 or less (likely 1e-6), i.e. a 1 m bar would grow by 100 um (or 1 um).
For some actual numbers, for aluminium the coeffecient of thermal expansion is 23.1 E-6, and the young's modulus is 69 GPa
That means if you take a rod that is 1 m long, a temperature increase of 1 degree will result in the rod extending 23.1 microns.
If you set it up to take off atmospheric pressure, but just at the ends to produce a uniaxial stress, then it would extend by approximately 1.5 microns.
Notice which one is dominant?

You also have another issue, the young's modulus only works for uniaxial stress. This is because it requires the material to elongate in one direction while contracting in the other 2 (excluding some strange materials). If you use hydro-static stress, this doesn't happen and the volume change is much much less, effectively non-existent.

The only time hydrostatic stress typically causes a difference in volume is when you cause it to undergo a phase transformation.

You don't have to answer this you can just take heed of this: Scales will react differently at both levels whether you like it or not.

Not if they are decent scales which are designed well. The atmospheric pressure does virtually nothing. The only possible issue would be temperature, but you can control the temperature to keep them acting the same, but for the change we expect, that small error should be insignificant.

Now, considering weight is merely a man made measurement of the density of a mass (shove your gravity where your sun don't shine) and scales are primarily built at sea level or near, using all kinds of components and metals to measure  what we place upon them whether on the ground or hanging from a wall on a plate or hook.

They will malfunction under extreme conditions, whether subjected to extreme sea level expansion or contraction of their metals and certainly at altitude they will severely malfunction due to break down of the structure of the metals,

Don't pretend it wouldn't happen.

How about you stop insulting gravity, when it is vastly more useful than your pile of shit?
No. The scales will not malfunction under such mild conditions as high altitude.
If you throw them into lava so the melt, then you will get issues. But for the most part, decent scales will be fine regardless of the conditions (within reason).
They won't break down due to altitude.

The structure of the metal won't magically break down.
Stop pretending it would happen unless you have something to back you up (and remember, if they did, why wouldn't it happen to planes?)

I'm in England, but regardless of that, little rabinoz has walked up a gradient in his little boots and woolly hat and gloves and done all kinds of non-experiments apart from farting and snotting his way up with a piss break and a short acclimatising meal break and breath back moment.

Stop boasting.
I once went to the top of the the sears tower and farted in the lift....so what.

And there you go with the insults and ignore the main issue.
He has been to low pressure environments and there was no noticeable effect on his weight.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

The weight of an aircraft at 40,000 ft is extremely relevant to the designers of aircraft.
They can calculate it, why can't you if your theory is any good?

They can imagine what the calculation is, they cannot verify it because it cannot be weighed.

If their values are not correct the plane does not fly as expected!

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

I can imagine it easy enough and at an altitude of 10,000 ft it could easily be done.

Tell me how it can be easily done?

You drive your car up there are measure it. Of course you could catch the little train up Mt Snowdon. It's only 3,560 ft, but even that should be enough!

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

No, I can't "see the issues here" because all your so-called issues are imaginary.
Please explain why "the setting of a scale plate would be remarkably different when placed at that height and also the springs at that height would be under much different molecular bonding."
The only relevant changes would be due to temperature and that can easily be accounted.

Because you've done all the tests and what not and you're such an expert.
Bollocks.
If you can't grasp what I've just told you then don't grasp it, but save the bullshit for someone that wants to smell it.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

But if that's too extreme you can drive to Tioga Pass, on the quite good road from Yosemite to Nevada, at 9,943 ft where the atmospheric pressure is about 10.13 psi. This should be different enough to see if atmospheric pressure has any effect on weight.

And you've done this and tested, what?

It's your theory. You prove it works! So far you have never shown any evidence that it ever gives any values that would verify it!

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

Please don't tell me that good quality scales will read differently up there!
And I will claim now that you could take a 5 lb "weight" up there and it will not change in weight by any measurable amount.

Tell me why metals break in extreme cold. Also tell me why metals expand?

At 10,000 ft! I drove our car a few time over Tioga pass and it didn't "shatter". The temperature there was a bit cool, but nothing extreme! Film cameras worked fine, so again stop pulling out excuse after excuse as to why you won't verify your theory!

Now do this under two extremes.
1. Sea level atmospheric pressure. How they expand and how they contract.
2. In extreme low pressure. How they expand and how they contract.
You don't have to answer this you can just take heed of this: Scales will react differently at both levels whether you like it or not.

But we are not talking about extremes! The 40,000 ft may have been a bit, but no big problem for metals. Planes regularly fly that high.

Now, considering weight is merely a man made measurement of the density of a mass (shove your gravity where your sun don't shine) and scales are primarily built at sea level or near, using all kinds of components and metals to measure  what we place upon them whether on the ground or hanging from a wall on a plate or hook.

They will malfunction under extreme conditions, whether subjected to extreme sea level expansion or contraction of their metals and certainly at altitude they will severely malfunction due to break down of the structure of the metals,

Don't pretend it wouldn't happen.

No weight is not a "man made measurement of the density of a mass"! It has not direct connection with density at all!

We are not talking of any out of this world extremes. In all of these cases (except at 40,000 ft) they are conditions that people live and work at. Nothing untoward happens at 10,000 ft or even 14,000 ft!

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

I mentioned Tioga Pass because I have been there a couple of times, but there are any number if high altitude roads in the USA, up to Mount Evans at 14,115 ft and Pikes Peak at 14,120 ft, both in Colorado. So you should have no trouble checking out your theory.

I'm in England, but regardless of that, little rabinoz has walked up a gradient in his little boots and woolly hat and gloves and done all kinds of non-experiments apart from farting and snotting his way up with a piss break and a short acclimatising meal break and breath back moment.

Stop boasting.
I once went to the top of the the sears tower and farted in the lift....so what.

And did everything fall apart at the top of the Sears Tower from the extreme conditions!
Stop being a complete idiot. I did expect that you would know that I would be driving!

In other words, your theory is completely incapable of giving any predictions of what would (and does) happen in the real world!

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

The weight of an aircraft at 40,000 ft is extremely relevant to the designers of aircraft.
They can calculate it, why can't you if your theory is any good?

They can imagine what the calculation is, they cannot verify it because it cannot be weighed.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

I can imagine it easy enough and at an altitude of 10,000 ft it could easily be done.

Tell me how it can be easily done?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

No, I can't "see the issues here" because all your so-called issues are imaginary.
Please explain why "the setting of a scale plate would be remarkably different when placed at that height and also the springs at that height would be under much different molecular bonding."
The only relevant changes would be due to temperature and that can easily be accounted.

Because you've done all the tests and what not and you're such an expert.
Bollocks.
If you can't grasp what I've just told you then don't grasp it, but save the bullshit for someone that wants to smell it.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

But if that's too extreme you can drive to Tioga Pass, on the quite good road from Yosemite to Nevada, at 9,943 ft where the atmospheric pressure is about 10.13 psi. This should be different enough to see if atmospheric pressure has any effect on weight.

And you've done this and tested, what?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

Please don't tell me that good quality scales will read differently up there!
And I will claim now that you could take a 5 lb "weight" up there and it will not change in weight by any measurable amount.

Tell me why metals break in extreme cold. Also tell me why metals expand?

Now do this under two extremes.
1. Sea level atmospheric pressure. How they expand and how they contract.

2. In extreme low pressure. How they expand and how they contract.

You don't have to answer this you can just take heed of this: Scales will react differently at both levels whether you like it or not.

Now, considering weight is merely a man made measurement of the density of a mass (shove your gravity where your sun don't shine) and scales are primarily built at sea level or near, using all kinds of components and metals to measure  what we place upon them whether on the ground or hanging from a wall on a plate or hook.

They will malfunction under extreme conditions, whether subjected to extreme sea level expansion or contraction of their metals and certainly at altitude they will severely malfunction due to break down of the structure of the metals,

Don't pretend it wouldn't happen.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:57:00 AM

I mentioned Tioga Pass because I have been there a couple of times, but there are any number if high altitude roads in the USA, up to Mount Evans at 14,115 ft and Pikes Peak at 14,120 ft, both in Colorado. So you should have no trouble checking out your theory.

I'm in England, but regardless of that, little rabinoz has walked up a gradient in his little boots and woolly hat and gloves and done all kinds of non-experiments apart from farting and snotting his way up with a piss break and a short acclimatising meal break and breath back moment.

Stop boasting.
I once went to the top of the the sears tower and farted in the lift....so what.

you are asking for experiments?

you should do first the experiment with the weight of a glass jar with air and with vacuum.
but you simple refuse to do so.
Why than you ask for somebody to make experiments.
you have to prove your denpressure idea before you can claim it is real.
but you simple don't do it, maybe because you know you will fail.
you have not one evidence that supports your idea of denpressure.
it does not even work theoretical.
you said above you answered my question, where? where did you explain that a vertical downwards denpressure generates my weight in a room with a roof.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 09, 2017, 04:11:55 PM

There is something you can do for us all:
Answer our questions about Denpressure.

I case you do not remember, mine was how does Denpressure work under a roof.

From what I understand the pressure equalises in the house or in the car, you have the atmosphere under x compression at sea level, that pressure is also in your house and holds you down the same way as if you were standing outside.

You need to think more outside the box for this one, by your logic in this model you would weigh more or less depending on the position of your body e.g. laying down would weigh more than standing up. Which is not the case and not the way bouyancy works.
...

that is the explanation of normal pressure.
Pressure works in all directions therefor the pressure downwards in equal the pressure upwards.
but denpressure is explained as it works only downwards otherwise it would not generate the weight of bodies.

therefor the normal atmospheric pressure is not the denpressure.
that mean all the explanations for denpressure by using normal pressure are useless because pressure and denpressure are not the same, not even a little bit.

if you now reduce all the "explanations" made by scepi from the pressure you have nothing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 03:00:46 AM

Can you grasp why I'm tending to overlook you?

Yes, quite easily.
I have repeatedly shown your model to be flawed and you have no rational response for it.
So rather than act like a rational adult, you instead act like a child and try to ignore what has shown you to be wrong, so you can continue pretending that you are right.

Does that about sum it up?

If you disagree, then go back and read what I have said and provide a rational refutation of it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 03:20:12 AM

Because you've done all the tests and what not and you're such an expert.
Bollocks.

I wouldn't say all, but I have done quite a few.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

If you can't grasp what I've just told you then don't grasp it, but save the bullshit for someone that wants to smell it.

Again, the issue isn't grasping it. The issue is that we aren't just going to accept your bullshit.
You are the one spouting bullshit here. If you weren't, you would have easily been able to refute me, or at least acknowledged the massive problem.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

Tell me why metals break in extreme cold. Also tell me why metals expand?

SOME metals become far more fragile in extreme cold, making them easier to break. This is because these particular metals undergo a phase transformation, typically a ductile to brittle phase transformation.
But not all metals do this.
As for why the expand, that is for the same reason the vast majority of things expand, due to heat.
As they take in energy and thus their internal energy increases, the atoms go to more excited vibrational energy levels.
This results in the molecules moving around more, forcing the structure apart.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

Now do this under two extremes.
1. Sea level atmospheric pressure. How they expand and how they contract.

2. In extreme low pressure. How they expand and how they contract.

Changing the pressure doesn't change the mechanism unless you make it change phase such as lowering the pressure to boil water.


The linear coefficient of thermal expansion is typically on the order of 1E-6 or greater (e.g. 1E-5, typically 1e-5 for metals) per kelvin. That means an increase of 1 degree kelvin would make a 1 m rod grow at least 1e-6 m, or 1 um.
The young's modulus is typically measured in GPa, with metals typically being 10s or 100s. Atmospheric pressure is ~ 100 kPa. That means the strain for 1 atmosphere would be on the order of 1e-4 or less (likely 1e-6), i.e. a 1 m bar would grow by 100 um (or 1 um).
For some actual numbers, for aluminium the coeffecient of thermal expansion is 23.1 E-6, and the young's modulus is 69 GPa
That means if you take a rod that is 1 m long, a temperature increase of 1 degree will result in the rod extending 23.1 microns.
If you set it up to take off atmospheric pressure, but just at the ends to produce a uniaxial stress, then it would extend by approximately 1.5 microns.
Notice which one is dominant?

You also have another issue, the young's modulus only works for uniaxial stress. This is because it requires the material to elongate in one direction while contracting in the other 2 (excluding some strange materials). If you use hydro-static stress, this doesn't happen and the volume change is much much less, effectively non-existent.

The only time hydrostatic stress typically causes a difference in volume is when you cause it to undergo a phase transformation.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

You don't have to answer this you can just take heed of this: Scales will react differently at both levels whether you like it or not.

Not if they are decent scales which are designed well. The atmospheric pressure does virtually nothing. The only possible issue would be temperature, but you can control the temperature to keep them acting the same, but for the change we expect, that small error should be insignificant.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

Now, considering weight is merely a man made measurement of the density of a mass (shove your gravity where your sun don't shine) and scales are primarily built at sea level or near, using all kinds of components and metals to measure  what we place upon them whether on the ground or hanging from a wall on a plate or hook.

They will malfunction under extreme conditions, whether subjected to extreme sea level expansion or contraction of their metals and certainly at altitude they will severely malfunction due to break down of the structure of the metals,

Don't pretend it wouldn't happen.

How about you stop insulting gravity, when it is vastly more useful than your pile of shit?
No. The scales will not malfunction under such mild conditions as high altitude.
If you throw them into lava so the melt, then you will get issues. But for the most part, decent scales will be fine regardless of the conditions (within reason).
They won't break down due to altitude.

The structure of the metal won't magically break down.
Stop pretending it would happen unless you have something to back you up (and remember, if they did, why wouldn't it happen to planes?)

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 02:09:35 AM

I'm in England, but regardless of that, little rabinoz has walked up a gradient in his little boots and woolly hat and gloves and done all kinds of non-experiments apart from farting and snotting his way up with a piss break and a short acclimatising meal break and breath back moment.

Stop boasting.
I once went to the top of the the sears tower and farted in the lift....so what.

And there you go with the insults and ignore the main issue.
He has been to low pressure environments and there was no noticeable effect on his weight.

Have you not figured out why I overlook you?

you are asking for experiments?

you should do first the experiment with the weight of a glass jar with air and with vacuum.
but you simple refuse to do so.
Why than you ask for somebody to make experiments.
you have to prove your denpressure idea before you can claim it is real.
but you simple don't do it, maybe because you know you will fail.
you have not one evidence that supports your idea of denpressure.
it does not even work theoretical.
you said above you answered my question, where? where did you explain that a vertical downwards denpressure generates my weight in a room with a roof.

Learn what denpressure is and then come back to me with your arguments.
All you're doing is arguing for no reason.
You are arguing against a model that you do not take the time to understand.

If you want to keep typing the same stuff then be my guest. I'm just trying to help you out by asking you to think about what you're arguing against.
Trust me, you do not know denpressure in any form.
Come back to me when you grasp a small part.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 10, 2017, 04:35:41 AM

you are asking for experiments?

you should do first the experiment with the weight of a glass jar with air and with vacuum.
but you simple refuse to do so.
Why than you ask for somebody to make experiments.
you have to prove your denpressure idea before you can claim it is real.
but you simple don't do it, maybe because you know you will fail.
you have not one evidence that supports your idea of denpressure.
it does not even work theoretical.
you said above you answered my question, where? where did you explain that a vertical downwards denpressure generates my weight in a room with a roof.

Learn what denpressure is and then come back to me with your arguments.
All you're doing is arguing for no reason.
You are arguing against a model that you do not take the time to understand.

If you want to keep typing the same stuff then be my guest. I'm just trying to help you out by asking you to think about what you're arguing against.
Trust me, you do not know denpressure in any form.
Come back to me when you grasp a small part.

ok give me sources where i can find informations about denpressure.
you should know where i can find stuff about it because as you claim its your theory.
if its your theory where did you got your information about it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 06:02:46 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on February 10, 2017, 04:35:41 AM

you are asking for experiments?

you should do first the experiment with the weight of a glass jar with air and with vacuum.
but you simple refuse to do so.
Why than you ask for somebody to make experiments.
you have to prove your denpressure idea before you can claim it is real.
but you simple don't do it, maybe because you know you will fail.
you have not one evidence that supports your idea of denpressure.
it does not even work theoretical.
you said above you answered my question, where? where did you explain that a vertical downwards denpressure generates my weight in a room with a roof.

Learn what denpressure is and then come back to me with your arguments.
All you're doing is arguing for no reason.
You are arguing against a model that you do not take the time to understand.

If you want to keep typing the same stuff then be my guest. I'm just trying to help you out by asking you to think about what you're arguing against.
Trust me, you do not know denpressure in any form.
Come back to me when you grasp a small part.

ok give me sources where i can find informations about denpressure.
you should know where i can find stuff about it because as you claim its your theory.
if its your theory where did you got your information about it.

Look for it on here and try and grasp some of it.
I'm not helping you.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 10, 2017, 06:15:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 06:02:46 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on February 10, 2017, 04:35:41 AM

you are asking for experiments?

you should do first the experiment with the weight of a glass jar with air and with vacuum.
but you simple refuse to do so.
Why than you ask for somebody to make experiments.
you have to prove your denpressure idea before you can claim it is real.
but you simple don't do it, maybe because you know you will fail.
you have not one evidence that supports your idea of denpressure.
it does not even work theoretical.
you said above you answered my question, where? where did you explain that a vertical downwards denpressure generates my weight in a room with a roof.

Learn what denpressure is and then come back to me with your arguments.
All you're doing is arguing for no reason.
You are arguing against a model that you do not take the time to understand.

If you want to keep typing the same stuff then be my guest. I'm just trying to help you out by asking you to think about what you're arguing against.
Trust me, you do not know denpressure in any form.
Come back to me when you grasp a small part.

ok give me sources where i can find informations about denpressure.
you should know where i can find stuff about it because as you claim its your theory.
if its your theory where did you got your information about it.

Look for it on here and try and grasp some of it.
I'm not helping you.

ok that proves to me that denpressure is nor explainable because everything here about denpressure make no sense and is not a little bit related to the reality.

and that you do not help somebody to understand your theory proves only that you are not able to explain the simplest little part and the flaw with it.

also you refuse to do experiments about your theory that would prove or disprove it.

all that put your theory to fiction. you could write a novel about it (like Terry Pratchett) but you can not claim your theory as the reality.

its up to you to develop a method to test your idea and than come back to us with a prove.
till than you should shut up about the denpressure idea.

ok that proves to me that denpressure is nor explainable because everything here about denpressure make no sense and is not a little bit related to the reality.

Ok then if that's what you feel. You see, gravity is not real because it isn't explainable, because everything about gravity makes no sense and is not even a little bit related to reality.

and that you do not help somebody to understand your theory proves only that you are not able to explain the simplest little part and the flaw with it.

When someone comes up to me and asks me if I know what number bus goes a certain route and I say number 336 and they continually keep getting on the wrong bus then coming to me asking why I lied, for me to keep telling them to stop taking the 335 and take the 336 even though the 336 only runs 3 times in the hour and the 335 runs 5 times but goes a different route. Stop taking the different route just because you think it's easier to take the more frequent bus.

Think about that.

also you refuse to do experiments about your theory that would prove or disprove it.

I've done my own and I could literally set up a lab in a factory and have cameras for all angles showing you all kinds of different proof's.
Guess what?
You would call me a liar. You would tell me I'm doing something wrong.
You would say anything that was needed to ensure your globe and it's nonsense trimmings stay's intact.
You do this because you're weak and you will also deny that you would call me a liar or tell me I'm not doing experiments correctly.
I have nothing to prove to you.
It's down to you whether you want to question what you are told is your reality. If not, then don't.

all that put your theory to fiction. you could write a novel about it (like Terry Pratchett) but you can not claim your theory as the reality.

Many novels were wrote about a globe. Many stories of fiction and you read them as fact because you took them from the fact shelf at your local library.
That's not your fault, nor is it the fault of the librarian who organises the books. It's the fault of the story teller who depicted that book as fact.
It simply takes a smart enough person to go and put those books where they belong.....on the FICTION shelf.

its up to you to develop a method to test your idea and than come back to us with a prove.
till than you should shut up about the denpressure idea.

I'm fine as I am. I have what's needed around me.
I type in a forum. I do not live in your home and I have no need to try to fit in with your clan by bringing my appeasement toys, just so I can be a part of it.

Think for you. Think for yourself. Do it because you are curious. Do it because you want to see what alternatives there is in life.
Or you can sit there and snigger at anyone who goes against what you were force fed and peer pressured into following.

You have a choice but not a lot of time to pick and choose, because life is short for thinking but not so short that you can't take one hint and sniff around it to start your very own jigsaw after a life time of piecing the same one together so much so that you don't even need a picture to aid you, you simply memorised the actually shapes.
If you're happy to keep doing that same jigsaw that was printed just for you by people you don't know, then go for it.

If you want to make your own or try to piece together an alternative, then the very least you can get from it is a refreshing change that will not only test your brain, it will be unique to your mind.
And even if you only add one piece to an alternative jigsaw, then that jigsaw is yours. Nobody else has that jigsaw.
Some people may claim it but you can shout...

This is my jigsaw. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My jigsaw is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
Without me, my jigsaw is useless. Without my jigsaw, I am useless. I must piece together my jigsaw true. I must piece it straighter than my enemy who is trying to unravel it. I must piece it against opposition before opposition unravels my jigsaw. I will...
My jigsaw and I know that what counts in alternative thinking is not the ridicule we fire, the noise of our tit for tats, nor the faces we make. We know that it is the pieces that count. We will piece it...
My jigsaw is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its shapes and its border. I will keep my jigsaw clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before scepti, I swear this is truth. My jigsaw and I are the defenders of alternate thinking. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the cleansers of our indoctrination.
So be it, until victory is a new theory and there is no enemy, but peace and hopefully not many pieces left.


This is how you want to be thinking.
The choice is still yours.

Ok then if that's what you feel. You see, gravity is not real because it isn't explainable, because everything about gravity makes no sense and is not even a little bit related to reality.

gravity is mostly explainable and testable and you can predict movement in the space with it very accurate,
therefor more likely real than denpressure

When shttps://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Themes/Redsy/images/bbc/email.gifomeone comes up to me and asks me if I know what number bus goes a certain route and I say number 336 and they continually keep getting on the wrong bus then coming to me asking why I lied, for me to keep telling them to stop taking the 335 and take the 336 even though the 336 only runs 3 times in the hour and the 335 runs 5 times but goes a different route. Stop taking the different route just because you think it's easier to take the more frequent bus.

Think about that.

but your bus 336 is not real because there is no prove of its existens

I've done my own and I could literally set up a lab in a factory and have cameras for all angles showing you all kinds of different proof's.
Guess what?
You would call me a liar. You would tell me I'm doing something wrong.
You would say anything that was needed to ensure your globe and it's nonsense trimmings stay's intact.
You do this because you're weak and you will also deny that you would call me a liar or tell me I'm not doing experiments correctly.
I have nothing to prove to you.
It's down to you whether you want to question what you are told is your reality. If not, then don't.

what experiments did you do?
can i see the reports and setup documentation?

going back to the experiment shown in the video.
what do you take from that experiment, how does it fit in your denpressure idea

Many novels were wrote about a globe. Many stories of fiction and you read them as fact because you took them from the fact shelf at your local library.
That's not your fault, nor is it the fault of the librarian who organises the books. It's the fault of the story teller who depicted that book as fact.
It simply takes a smart enough person to go and put those books where they belong.....on the FICTION shelf.

ok there is fiction that has a round earth in it, but that does not prove that every written text that is about round earth if fiction.
than i could argue that flat earth is fiction because there are novels about flat earth.

to speak in your analogie: Ford is a brand of a car, that does not mean all cars are made by Ford

I'm fine as I am. I have what's needed around me.
I type in a forum. I do not live in your home and I have no need to try to fit in with your clan by bringing my appeasement toys, just so I can be a part of it.

Think for you. Think for yourself. Do it because you are curious. Do it because you want to see what alternatives there is in life.
Or you can sit there and snigger at anyone who goes against what you were force fed and peer pressured into following.

You have a choice but not a lot of time to pick and choose, because life is short for thinking but not so short that you can't take one hint and sniff around it to start your very own jigsaw after a life time of piecing the same one together so much so that you don't even need a picture to aid you, you simply memorised the actually shapes.
If you're happy to keep doing that same jigsaw that was printed just for you by people you don't know, then go for it.

If you want to make your own or try to piece together an alternative, then the very least you can get from it is a refreshing change that will not only test your brain, it will be unique to your mind.
And even if you only add one piece to an alternative jigsaw, then that jigsaw is yours. Nobody else has that jigsaw.
Some people may claim it but you can shout...

This is my jigsaw. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My jigsaw is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
Without me, my jigsaw is useless. Without my jigsaw, I am useless. I must piece together my jigsaw true. I must piece it straighter than my enemy who is trying to unravel it. I must piece it against opposition before opposition unravels my jigsaw. I will...
My jigsaw and I know that what counts in alternative thinking is not the ridicule we fire, the noise of our tit for tats, nor the faces we make. We know that it is the pieces that count. We will piece it...
My jigsaw is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its shapes and its border. I will keep my jigsaw clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before scepti, I swear this is truth. My jigsaw and I are the defenders of alternate thinking. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the cleansers of our indoctrination.
So be it, until victory is a new theory and there is no enemy, but peace and hopefully not many pieces left.


This is how you want to be thinking.
The choice is still yours.

its fine if you think what you think, but do not try to convince people that only your thinking is correct while you have no prove about what you say.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 10, 2017, 04:30:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 03:00:46 AM

Can you grasp why I'm tending to overlook you?

Yes, quite easily.
I have repeatedly shown your model to be flawed and you have no rational response for it.
So rather than act like a rational adult, you instead act like a child and try to ignore what has shown you to be wrong, so you can continue pretending that you are right.

Does that about sum it up?

If you disagree, then go back and read what I have said and provide a rational refutation of it.

Have you not figured out why I overlook you?

As I said above, in the quote you posted, I have a good idea of why.
Because I showed that your idea is garbage and you have no rational defence of it.
You are being quite like inky now.

Rather than even attempt to refute what I have said, you are forced to ignore me because you know you cannot refute it as I demonstrated quite effectively that your denpressure explanation of weight is pure garbage as it does not match reality at all.
I brought up a quite specific example, which is quite easy for people to verify, with actual numbers, which points out the insanity of your model.

You have no refutation for it, so you ignore me.

This means you are not here trying to explain a model. Instead it means you are here to pedal bullshit.
So this means the conversation turns from trying to obtain an explanation, as you know you are lying to us all, to pointing out your bullshit.
I don't care that much if you ignore me. It won't stop me from pointing out your bullshit everywhere I see it.

If you want me to reevaluate you and denpressure, then go and respond to my query.

Learn what denpressure is and then come back to me with your arguments.

That is quite difficult when you are so reluctant to explain any of it.
I think that may be because when you explain it we come up with experiments like the above which show your denpressure model to be wrong.

All you're doing is arguing for no reason.
You are arguing against a model that you do not take the time to understand.

No. We are arguing for the sake of determining if your model accurately represents reality.
We are arguing against a model that we understand, at least in part, and we understand that this part contradicts reality.
Based upon what we have observed in reality, we know that weight cannot be caused by displacing air.

If you want to keep typing the same stuff then be my guest. I'm just trying to help you out by asking you to think about what you're arguing against.
Trust me, you do not know denpressure in any form.
Come back to me when you grasp a small part.

No. You aren't trying to help us out. You are trying to con people into beleiving your nonsense.
We have thought about what we are arguing against.
That is why we realise it is so wrong.

Stop acting like we don't understand because we realise it contradicts reality.
Trust me, we do understand. We do grasp it.
If you wish to claim otherwise you should show how we don't, by explaining weight in your system. Previously you said objects weigh an amount dependent on how much air they displace. But we have shown that can't be the case. So is that how denpressure works? Or were you just saying something that went against your model?

Perhaps you should leave and come back when you are willing to honestly and rationally discuss your idea, including the problems it has, such as where it contradicts reality.

Look for it on here and try and grasp some of it.
I'm not helping you.

We have. That is how I discovered your nonsense claims about density, which completely contradict reality.
It's quite obvious you aren't helping us. You are only helping yourself. You aren't here to present an idea which might explain reality. You are here to pedal bullshit.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 10, 2017, 06:38:03 AM

ok that proves to me that denpressure is nor explainable because everything here about denpressure make no sense and is not a little bit related to the reality.

Ok then if that's what you feel. You see, gravity is not real because it isn't explainable, because everything about gravity makes no sense and is not even a little bit related to reality.

The big difference here is that his statement is factual. Your explanations either make no sense, or outright contradict reality.
On the other hand, while gravity does have some issues with explanations, it does match reality and it does make sense, so your statement is just a lie.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 10, 2017, 06:38:03 AM

and that you do not help somebody to understand your theory proves only that you are not able to explain the simplest little part and the flaw with it.

When someone comes up to me and asks me if I know what number bus goes a certain route and I say number 336 and they continually keep getting on the wrong bus then coming to me asking why I lied, for me to keep telling them to stop taking the 335 and take the 336 even though the 336 only runs 3 times in the hour and the 335 runs 5 times but goes a different route. Stop taking the different route just because you think it's easier to take the more frequent bus.

And there you go misrepresenting it again.
We aren't taking a different route.
We are using what you are saying to show you why your theory is wrong.
If you route requires rejecting reality, then it is the wrong route.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 10, 2017, 06:38:03 AM

also you refuse to do experiments about your theory that would prove or disprove it.

I've done my own and I could literally set up a lab in a factory and have cameras for all angles showing you all kinds of different proof's.
Guess what?

So you have done the experiments and know that your model contradicts reality?

You would call me a liar. You would tell me I'm doing something wrong.
You would say anything that was needed to ensure your globe and it's nonsense trimmings stay's intact.

No. If anything, that is because that would be needed to produce the results to support your nonsense.
We have explained quite simply why your model is wrong and provided experiments you can do to test this.

The reason you refuse is because if you did these experiments honestly they would show you to be completely wrong.

If you did them dishonestly, we would at least have an experiment we could repeat and show honestly.
And then I assume if we did that you would start accusing us of lying and faking it as that is what is required to keep your bullshit denpressure crap intact.

I have nothing to prove to you.

Yes, you do. You are claiming that denpressure describes reality.
We have provided simple experiments which show that isn't the case.
The burden of proof is entirely upon you to prove that denpressure is true or at least consistent with reality.

It's down to you whether you want to question what you are told is your reality. If not, then don't.

And that is exactly what we are doing. We are questioning what you are telling us is our reality.
This is because we realise it contradicts reality.

It is up to you if you want to appear honest and genuine and actually address these issues, or appear to be just another conman pedalling bullshit.

Many novels were wrote about a globe. Many stories of fiction and you read them as fact because you took them from the fact shelf at your local library.
That's not your fault, nor is it the fault of the librarian who organises the books. It's the fault of the story teller who depicted that book as fact.

Yes, many novels were written with a round Earth, because that is what reality is.

No. It is also partly the fault of people who accept the bullshit, espeically when it is so easy to show it is bullshit like your denpressure bullshit.
But yes, it would also be heavily your fault for pedalling your bullshit and pretending it is fact.

It simply takes a smart enough person to go and put those books where they belong.....on the FICTION shelf.

And that is what we are doing.
We are pointing out your story belongs on the fiction shelf, not the fact, as it cannot explain reality at all.

I'm fine as I am. I have what's needed around me.

And that is because you don't give a shit about the truth and seem to have no interest in developing a model which explains reality.
Unfortunately for you, we actually care about the truth, so we will point out when your model fails.

I type in a forum. I do not live in your home and I have no need to try to fit in with your clan by bringing my appeasement toys, just so I can be a part of it.

If you wish to claim your model represents reality, and want that claim taken seriously, you do.

Think for you. Think for yourself. Do it because you are curious. Do it because you want to see what alternatives there is in life.

And that is exactly what we are doing. We investigate new ideas because we are curious. But that doesn't mean we just accept them. Instead we actually think about them. This can often including finding problems, such as where your model completely contradicts reality.

Or you can sit there and snigger at anyone who goes against what you were force fed and peer pressured into following.

Do you mean basically what you are doing? Where you just insult and ridicule anyone that goes against the garbage you are promoting?

You have a choice but not a lot of time to pick and choose, because life is short for thinking but not so short that you can't take one hint and sniff around it to start your very own jigsaw after a life time of piecing the same one together so much so that you don't even need a picture to aid you, you simply memorised the actually shapes.
If you're happy to keep doing that same jigsaw that was printed just for you by people you don't know, then go for it.

And my choice is to explain reality and help others. That means if the model is incapable of explaining reality, it is of no use. However I will still try to learn about it to help others realise the issues of the model.
If someone comes up with a new idea, I will investigate it to see if it is a better or worse fit for reality than the existing model. If it is a worse fit, I'm not going to accept it because they want me to, especially not if they keep insulting me when I ask questions about it.

If you want to make your own or try to piece together an alternative, then the very least you can get from it is a refreshing change that will not only test your brain, it will be unique to your mind.
And even if you only add one piece to an alternative jigsaw, then that jigsaw is yours. Nobody else has that jigsaw.
Some people may claim it but you can shout...

This is my jigsaw. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My jigsaw is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
Without me, my jigsaw is useless. Without my jigsaw, I am useless. I must piece together my jigsaw true. I must piece it straighter than my enemy who is trying to unravel it. I must piece it against opposition before opposition unravels my jigsaw. I will...
My jigsaw and I know that what counts in alternative thinking is not the ridicule we fire, the noise of our tit for tats, nor the faces we make. We know that it is the pieces that count. We will piece it...
My jigsaw is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its shapes and its border. I will keep my jigsaw clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before scepti, I swear this is truth. My jigsaw and I are the defenders of alternate thinking. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the cleansers of our indoctrination.
So be it, until victory is a new theory and there is no enemy, but peace and hopefully not many pieces left.


This is how you want to be thinking.
The choice is still yours.

No. That is just a complete load of crap.
People can do just well without their own jigsaw.
I would prefer a model of reality which actually works to explain reality and allow people to make predictions about it.
How would you feel if car designers/manufacturers made their own jigsaws of reality so their cars kept falling apart, killing your loved ones in the process?

How you want to be thinking is to help humanity by developping a model that explains reality. That means rather than just you trying to piece it together you have the collective work of mankind trying to put it together. It isn't your jigsaw, it is humanity's jigsaw. Everyone can access it and get help to understand it and contribute to it.

What you are describing is how you make a fictional work or a fictional universe, where it is yours and you say what happens, not reality, where reality itself decides what happens, whether you like it or not.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 10, 2017, 04:30:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 03:00:46 AM

Can you grasp why I'm tending to overlook you?

And there you go with the insults and ignore the main issue.
He has been to low pressure environments and there was no noticeable effect on his weight.

Have you not figured out why I overlook you?

Yes, we've long ago figured out why you overlook JackBlack and many others.

This is my jigsaw. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My jigsaw is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
Without me, my jigsaw is useless. Without my jigsaw, I am useless. I must piece together my jigsaw true. I must piece it straighter than my enemy who is trying to unravel it. I must piece it against opposition before opposition unravels my jigsaw. I will...
My jigsaw and I know that what counts in alternative thinking is not the ridicule we fire, the noise of our tit for tats, nor the faces we make. We know that it is the pieces that count. We will piece it...
My jigsaw is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its shapes and its border. I will keep my jigsaw clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before scepti, I swear this is truth. My jigsaw and I are the defenders of alternate thinking. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the cleansers of our indoctrination.
So be it, until victory is a new theory and there is no enemy, but peace and hopefully not many pieces left.


This is how you want to be thinking.
The choice is still yours.

OK, but it seems obvious that you have quite different definitions for many words used in normal life and especially in physics.
So, just so that we talk the same language I will give what I understand to be the definitions of some of these words:

• Mass: in physics, mass is the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it.
  Now the usual unit, the kilogram (kg) is manmade, but work is in progress to define the kilogram in terms the number of some particular atom, such as silicon.
  
  
• Length: is defined as the straight-line distance between two points along an object. The SI unit of length is the metre, m.
  The original definition of the metre was one ten-millionth the distance from the Equator to the North Pole, making it not man-made, but the distance always had to be inferred from a set of local measurements, so the metre is now defined as " the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
  
  
• Area: is the number of square length units it takes to cover a surface. The SI unit is the square metre (m²).
  
  
• Volume: is the number of cubic length units it takes to fill a space. The SI unit is the cubic metre (m³).
  
  
• Density: is a measure of quantity of matter per unit volume, so density = (mass/volume).
  The SI unit of density in kilograms per cubic metre (kg/m³)
  

There are a number more that are quite relevant, such as velocity, acceleration, force, inertia and pressure, but I'll leave it here for now.

I believe part of the problem here is simply communication. You seem to have different definitions for some of these words.

If you do you can't expect others to follow what you are saying. So if you definition is not the standard one, then you should use a different word.
Communication is impossible if there is no common definition of the words used. Otherwise we end up in "Wonderland"

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

It's really Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

Ok then if that's what you feel. You see, gravity is not real because it isn't explainable, because everything about gravity makes no sense and is not even a little bit related to reality.

You claim that gravitation (or gravity, essentially the same thing)
Last bit first: I am afraid while you claim that "gravity makes no sense", gravity (with GR, where applicable) does work it every situation on earth. The only suspected deviations are at cosmic distances from here.

Then on explainability:
You give some completely meaningless "explanation" of magnetic attraction, but as yet no explanation of electrostatic forces.
Not only that, but I fail to see how you so-called explanation covers how magnets and electric charges can both repel and attract, and how are almost unaffected by air-pressure from vacuum to very high pressure.
Then, how can electrostatic forces be completely blocked by very thin conductors, yet magnetic forces are unaffected unless that conductor is magnetic.

But on gravitation, the ultimate cause might not yet be explainable, but gravitation has been verified experimentally numerous.

Not only that, gravitation works and explains the operation of many things, including the period of pendulums and it's variation with altitude and latitude - you know, that little question that caused you to blow your top (again).

You throw off at pendulums, but their study formed part of the research that led up th the theory of gravitation.
Not only that, but the precision of pendulum clocks was extremely important before the development of quartz crystal oscillators.

Yet the period of a pendulum is very dependent on gravity, but you deny gravity.
So please show us how you calculate the period of a pendulum, both in air and in a vacuum.
You have the right to believe what you like, but others have just as much right to show where you are wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 05:58:41 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 10, 2017, 04:30:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 03:00:46 AM

Can you grasp why I'm tending to overlook you?

And there you go with the insults and ignore the main issue.
He has been to low pressure environments and there was no noticeable effect on his weight.

Have you not figured out why I overlook you?

Yes, we've long ago figured out why you overlook JackBlack and many others.

You have no answer for the questions they raise.

As far as I'm aware, all questions were answered.
Just because you don't like the answers does not mean I refused to answer.
I keep asking what gravity is and still haven't had an answer from you people and you lot even come armed with a library of supposed ready made answers without you even having to really think...but look....no answer.

OK, but it seems obvious that you have quite different definitions for many words used in normal life and especially in physics.
So, just so that we talk the same language I will give what I understand to be the definitions of some of these words:

• Mass: in physics, mass is the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it.
  Now the usual unit, the kilogram (kg) is manmade, but work is in progress to define the kilogram in terms the number of some particular atom, such as silicon.
  
  
• Length: is defined as the straight-line distance between two points along an object. The SI unit of length is the metre, m.
  The original definition of the metre was one ten-millionth the distance from the Equator to the North Pole, making it not man-made, but the distance always had to be inferred from a set of local measurements, so the metre is now defined as " the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
  
  
• Area: is the number of square length units it takes to cover a surface. The SI unit is the square metre (m²).
  
  
• Volume: is the number of cubic length units it takes to fill a space. The SI unit is the cubic metre (m³).
  
  
• Density: is a measure of quantity of matter per unit volume, so density = (mass/volume).
  The SI unit of density in kilograms per cubic metre (kg/m³)
  

There are a number more that are quite relevant, such as velocity, acceleration, force, inertia and pressure, but I'll leave it here for now.

I believe part of the problem here is simply communication. You seem to have different definitions for some of these words.

If you do you can't expect others to follow what you are saying. So if you definition is not the standard one, then you should use a different word.
Communication is impossible if there is no common definition of the words used. Otherwise we end up in "Wonderland"

Quote from: LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson)

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

It's really Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

I understand we have a basic acceptance of meanings of words. I can usually roll with them until it comes to the duping method.
You see I'm not trying to change anything on the whole, I'm just placing a different slant onto some of it to show how things can paint a different picture.

I understand that you get confused by my way of thinking and many will. It's not because my way of thinking is difficult. It's because you refuse to lower yourself to drop down to basics.
You keep mentioning calculations. You keep bringing up meanings.
You will go through brick walls to bring me equations that you think are relevant to YOUR discussion and what you believe I should place against my thought process.

No, no, no, it does not work like that.
You're a smart person. You are intelligent. You are probably smarter than the average bear.....BUT....only in the blinkers you wear.

I'm at one side of those blinkers and others are at the other side and yet you do not see.
You can tread your path until you expire but your pockets can and will be picked on your journey, because of your refusal to take off those blinkers to see and evaluate what is beside you.

It's called naivety and gullibility. Basically different words but a similar meaning, yet can be used in different contexts. See what I mean?

You come across as a Sheldon Cooper without the over -excitability.
I don't dislike you. I actually like you and do think you are smart.
I also believe you have the potential to actually take those blinkers off. I really do.

Just take a little peek through any gap you can see through and start from there. Let's see you put that brilliant mind to work in a reality check rather than a fantasy story following.

You claim that gravitation (or gravity, essentially the same thing)

"is not real because it isn't explainable, because everything about gravity makes no sense and is not even a little bit related to reality."

Last bit first: I am afraid while you claim that "gravity makes no sense", gravity (with GR, where applicable) does work it every situation on earth. The only suspected deviations are at cosmic distances from here.

Ok then, I'd like you to explain to me how gravity is used in every day life in construction or whatever.
Now I don't want you to just say stuff like..." well ermmm, bridges...there...bridges prove it"..I want you to actually tell me how gravity/gravitation/gravilocks or gravygravvygravity whatever you want to call it, works to aid in construction.
I'll make it easier.
Me and you are stood at the water. I say to you, " now then Rab, I'm going to build a bridge but I'm worried about this gravity stuff..can you help?"
I want you to say " sure scepti, here's my gravity meter and graviton detector and I'll show you how to use it and even help you, so let's go into the porta-cabin that has miraculously appeared behind us whilst we were chatting."
Ok Rab, I'd like you to now show me how gravity calculates how we construct the bridge.
I need to be sure it's gravity. I don't want to be having a drink later and telling the construction workers that is apparently gravity that helps us. I need to show them and I'm banking on you, Rab.

Then on explainability:
You give some completely meaningless "explanation" of magnetic attraction, but as yet no explanation of electrostatic forces.
Not only that, but I fail to see how you so-called explanation covers how magnets and electric charges can both repel and attract, and how are almost unaffected by air-pressure from vacuum to very high pressure.
Then, how can electrostatic forces be completely blocked by very thin conductors, yet magnetic forces are unaffected unless that conductor is magnetic.

Yea but I haven't really got into that. It's a different topic and I'm already bombarded with stuff. Give me a break will you. I only have one brain and one pair of hands even if you do think it's rotten.

But on gravitation, the ultimate cause might not yet be explainable, but gravitation has been verified experimentally numerous.

That's fine. I'll take the verification. Let's build that bridge.

Not only that, gravitation works and explains the operation of many things, including the period of pendulums and it's variation with altitude and latitude - you know, that little question that caused you to blow your top (again).

As basic as you can, you can explain this as well.

You throw off at pendulums, but their study formed part of the research that led up th the theory of gravitation.
Not only that, but the precision of pendulum clocks was extremely important before the development of quartz crystal oscillators.

You can also explain this too, in your own words if you can...and as basic as you can.

Yet the period of a pendulum is very dependent on gravity, but you deny gravity.
So please show us how you calculate the period of a pendulum, both in air and in a vacuum.

If a theory cannot provide predictive capability like this it is useless in the real world.

You have the right to believe what you like, but others have just as much right to show where you are wrong.

I'm not calculating anything. I have no need to.
If calculations were the ultimate proof of thought processes then you would not be here arguing against a flat Earth and alternate thought processes.
Yet we have massive conflicts of opinions on calculations of sun distances on a flat to a globe. Not by a minor amount but by over 92 million miles, etc, etc.
Now neither could be right but certainly both CANNOT be right. Right?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:41:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 05:58:41 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 10, 2017, 04:30:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 03:00:46 AM

Can you grasp why I'm tending to overlook you?

And there you go with the insults and ignore the main issue.
He has been to low pressure environments and there was no noticeable effect on his weight.

Have you not figured out why I overlook you?

Yes, we've long ago figured out why you overlook JackBlack and many others.

You have no answer for the questions they raise.

As far as I'm aware, all questions were answered.
Just because you don't like the answers does not mean I refused to answer.
I keep asking what gravity is and still haven't had an answer from you people and you lot even come armed with a library of supposed ready made answers without you even having to really think...but look....no answer.

As far as I am aware.you have never given the answer to any question involving numbers!

Yet the period of a pendulum is very dependent on gravity, but you deny gravity.
So please show us how you calculate the period of a pendulum, both in air and in a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 10:33:06 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 02:41:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 05:58:41 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 10, 2017, 04:30:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 03:00:46 AM

Can you grasp why I'm tending to overlook you?

And there you go with the insults and ignore the main issue.
He has been to low pressure environments and there was no noticeable effect on his weight.

Have you not figured out why I overlook you?

Yes, we've long ago figured out why you overlook JackBlack and many others.

You have no answer for the questions they raise.

As far as I'm aware, all questions were answered.
Just because you don't like the answers does not mean I refused to answer.
I keep asking what gravity is and still haven't had an answer from you people and you lot even come armed with a library of supposed ready made answers without you even having to really think...but look....no answer.

As far as I am aware.you have never given the answer to any question involving numbers!

Yet the period of a pendulum is very dependent on gravity, but you deny gravity.
So please show us how you calculate the period of a pendulum, both in air and in a vacuum.

If a theory cannot provide predictive capability like this it is useless in the real world.

Knock knock, hello.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 03:37:40 PM

OK, but it seems obvious that you have quite different definitions for many words used in normal life and especially in physics.
So, just so that we talk the same language I will give what I understand to be the definitions of some of these words:

• Mass: in physics, mass is the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it.
  Now the usual unit, the kilogram (kg) is manmade, but work is in progress to define the kilogram in terms the number of some particular atom, such as silicon.
  
  
• Length: is defined as the straight-line distance between two points along an object. The SI unit of length is the metre, m.
  The original definition of the metre was one ten-millionth the distance from the Equator to the North Pole, making it not man-made, but the distance always had to be inferred from a set of local measurements, so the metre is now defined as " the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
  
  
• Area: is the number of square length units it takes to cover a surface. The SI unit is the square metre (m²).
  
  
• Volume: is the number of cubic length units it takes to fill a space. The SI unit is the cubic metre (m³).
  
  
• Density: is a measure of quantity of matter per unit volume, so density = (mass/volume).
  The SI unit of density in kilograms per cubic metre (kg/m³)
  

There are a number more that are quite relevant, such as velocity, acceleration, force, inertia and pressure, but I'll leave it here for now.

I believe part of the problem here is simply communication. You seem to have different definitions for some of these words.

If you do you can't expect others to follow what you are saying. So if you definition is not the standard one, then you should use a different word.
Communication is impossible if there is no common definition of the words used. Otherwise we end up in "Wonderland"

Quote from: LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson)

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

It's really Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

I understand we have a basic acceptance of meanings of words. I can usually roll with them until it comes to the duping method.
You see I'm not trying to change anything on the whole, I'm just placing a different slant onto some of it to show how things can paint a different picture.

I understand that you get confused by my way of thinking and many will. It's not because my way of thinking is difficult. It's because you refuse to lower yourself to drop down to basics.
You keep mentioning calculations. You keep bringing up meanings.
You will go through brick walls to bring me equations that you think are relevant to YOUR discussion and what you believe I should place against my thought process.

No, no, no, it does not work like that.
You're a smart person. You are intelligent. You are probably smarter than the average bear.....BUT....only in the blinkers you wear.

I'm at one side of those blinkers and others are at the other side and yet you do not see.
You can tread your path until you expire but your pockets can and will be picked on your journey, because of your refusal to take off those blinkers to see and evaluate what is beside you.

It's called naivety and gullibility. Basically different words but a similar meaning, yet can be used in different contexts. See what I mean?

You come across as a Sheldon Cooper without the over -excitability.
I don't dislike you. I actually like you and do think you are smart.
I also believe you have the potential to actually take those blinkers off. I really do.

Just take a little peek through any gap you can see through and start from there. Let's see you put that brilliant mind to work in a reality check rather than a fantasy story following.

You clearly do not understand what "density" means if you can write this:

. . . . . . .
Yes the 2kg of balsa wood would have more density than the 1kg of lead.
. . . . . . . .

So, maybe you can start using the correct words for there. There is no context that I can see that can make "density" mean the same as "mass" or "weight".

There is often confusion in non-technical circles between "mass" and "weight", but never between density" and "mass" or "weight".
My quote from "Through the Looking Glass" looks more apt than I suspected.

You clearly do not understand what "density" means if you can write this:

Maybe it's you that doesn't get what I'm saying.

So, maybe you can start using the correct words for there. There is no context that I can see that can make "density" mean the same as "mass" or "weight".

There is often confusion in non-technical circles between "mass" and "weight", but never between density" and "mass" or "weight".
My quote from "Through the Looking Glass" looks more apt than I suspected.

There's confusion because there's a bit of duping nonsense going on with it to deliberately confuse.
It's done so gravity appears to have a meaning...a real property and it basically does not.
This is why you are not answering my questions on explaining gravity. It's because your head is crammed with memorising 800 packs of playing cards and you just don't have the time for real logic.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 11:24:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 10:33:06 PM

I keep asking what gravity is and still haven't had an answer from you people and you lot even come armed with a library of supposed ready made answers without you even having to really think...but look....no answer.

As far as I am aware.you have never given the answer to any question involving numbers!

Yet the period of a pendulum is very dependent on gravity, but you deny gravity.
So please show us how you calculate the period of a pendulum, both in air and in a vacuum.

If a theory cannot provide predictive capability like this it is useless in the real world.

Knock knock, hello.

You say that you "keep asking what gravity is and still haven't had an answer"!

OK, this is what Newtonian Gravitation is 

And gravitation has been directly measured dozens of times and gravitation explains numerous things from the period of a pendulum (yes again) to the orbital periods of the moons of Jupiter.

Now, there are still questions as to the ultimate cause of that, but there are many things that we don't fully understand yet.
Even you still haven't explained the ultimate cause of electrical forces.

You don't like anything involving equations or even numbers, but in the real world those things are essential.
That is unless you are content to live as a hermit away from technology. Since you are using the Internet,  that is clearly not the case.
You are quite content to use the results of science and technology, yet completely deny the basis of such technology.

Of course, you have the distinct advantage over all of us. Anything you can't understand, you can declare a fake, whereas we do research and try to understand it.

But, if it keeps you happy living in your fantasy land, you have thst right and we should leave you to it.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 11:42:21 PM

You clearly do not understand what "density" means if you can write this:

Maybe it's you that doesn't get what I'm saying.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 11:42:21 PM

So, maybe you can start using the correct words for there. There is no context that I can see that can make "density" mean the same as "mass" or "weight".

Whether you like it or not, "density" is the "mass" per unit "volume". "Gravity" and "weight" don't come into it.

If you want a word for something else, go and use the correct word for that thing or if there is no word, make up your own and define clearly what it means.

This all started with your claiming that 2 kg of balsa has a higher density than 1 kg of lead. Have you yet seen why that is so wrong.
There are many grades of balsa, but a typical density is about 160 kg/m³ and the density of lead is  11,340 kg/m³.
So, honestly I cannot work out what you mean by "density", whether you mean "mass", "weight" or something else.

You say that you "keep asking what gravity is and still haven't had an answer"!

OK, this is what Newtonian Gravitation is 

the force between two masses as proportional to the product of their masses and inversally proportional to the square of the distance between them

And gravitation has been directly measured dozens of times and gravitation explains numerous things from the period of a pendulum (yes again) to the orbital periods of the moons of Jupiter.

Now, there are still questions as to the ultimate cause of that, but there are many things that we don't fully understand yet.
Even you still haven't explained the ultimate cause of electrical forces.

You don't like anything involving equations or even numbers, but in the real world those things are essential.
That is unless you are content to live as a hermit away from technology. Since you are using the Internet,  that is clearly not the case.
You are quite content to use the results of science and technology, yet completely deny the basis of such technology.

Of course, you have the distinct advantage over all of us. Anything you can't understand, you can declare a fake, whereas we do research and try to understand it.

But, if it keeps you happy living in your fantasy land, you have thst right and we should leave you to it.

See what I mean?
You cannot explain what gravity is and you go on about my model.
Describe what this absolute load of gunk actually means in terms of proving gravity.

Use your basic mind to explain how this nails gravity so that I have no doubts.
OK, this is what Newtonian Gravitation is 
the force between two masses as proportional to the product of their masses and inversally proportional to the square of the distance between them
Explain this gunk above.