Denpressure and tides 2nd

You have no clue. You're just coming out with anything in this name.
Carry on spouting nonsense.

Cut the crap.
I do have a clue.
I understand what you are claiming.
I understand how it is completely wrong.
I understand how it completely contradicts reality.

I am not just coming out with anything.
I am coming out with serious flaws in your model which you cannot address.
Instead of addressing them you just repeatedly spout nonsense.

You even come up with nonsense like the space inside not existing.
Well guess what? That doesn't matter. You still displaced the air out of it so it should still have a massive increase in weight according to your model, yet it doesn't, instead it gets lighter.

How about instead of spouting nonsense you actually address that issue properly, explaining how displacing the air results in a reduction of weight rather than a gain, or just admit your model is wrong?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 14, 2017, 02:17:39 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2017, 12:34:10 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
If displacing atmosphere is required for an object to have a weight (and thus fall), then in a vacuum chamber, where there is little (or effectively no) atmosphere, then it can't displace the atmosphere and thus has no weight, as such it should float.

But in reality, things still fall in a vacuum.
So no, in reality, in our model, things still fall.
In your model, where displacement of the atmosphere is required for weight, they don't.

You have no clue. You're just coming out with anything in this name.
Carry on spouting nonsense.

You, Sceppy, have no clue. You're just coming out with anything to prop up your hypothesis. Carry on spouting nonsense.

I'll carry on showing that gravity is a lie and that atmospheric pressure is the real reason for everything happening.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 14, 2017, 02:17:39 PM

You have no clue. You're just coming out with anything in this name.
Carry on spouting nonsense.

Cut the crap.
I do have a clue.
I understand what you are claiming.
I understand how it is completely wrong.
I understand how it completely contradicts reality.

I am not just coming out with anything.
I am coming out with serious flaws in your model which you cannot address.
Instead of addressing them you just repeatedly spout nonsense.

You even come up with nonsense like the space inside not existing.
Well guess what? That doesn't matter. You still displaced the air out of it so it should still have a massive increase in weight according to your model, yet it doesn't, instead it gets lighter.

How about instead of spouting nonsense you actually address that issue properly, explaining how displacing the air results in a reduction of weight rather than a gain, or just admit your model is wrong?

Why would it have a massive increase in weight?
All you have done is evacuated atmosphere from the jar and that atmosphere just takes it's place as part of the external atmosphere that is already pushing down on the jar as the jar is resisting that push by it's own dense mass.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 14, 2017, 05:39:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 14, 2017, 02:17:39 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2017, 12:34:10 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
If displacing atmosphere is required for an object to have a weight (and thus fall), then in a vacuum chamber, where there is little (or effectively no) atmosphere, then it can't displace the atmosphere and thus has no weight, as such it should float.

But in reality, things still fall in a vacuum.
So no, in reality, in our model, things still fall.
In your model, where displacement of the atmosphere is required for weight, they don't.

You have no clue. You're just coming out with anything in this name.
Carry on spouting nonsense.

You, Sceppy, have no clue. You're just coming out with anything to prop up your hypothesis. Carry on spouting nonsense.

I'll carry on showing that gravity is a lie and that atmospheric pressure is the real reason for everything happening.

So, spouting pure crap?

You are yet to show that gravity is a lie or that atmospheric pressure even comes close to explaining why things have weight.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2017, 12:26:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 14, 2017, 02:17:39 PM

You have no clue. You're just coming out with anything in this name.
Carry on spouting nonsense.

Cut the crap.
I do have a clue.
I understand what you are claiming.
I understand how it is completely wrong.
I understand how it completely contradicts reality.

I am not just coming out with anything.
I am coming out with serious flaws in your model which you cannot address.
Instead of addressing them you just repeatedly spout nonsense.

You even come up with nonsense like the space inside not existing.
Well guess what? That doesn't matter. You still displaced the air out of it so it should still have a massive increase in weight according to your model, yet it doesn't, instead it gets lighter.

How about instead of spouting nonsense you actually address that issue properly, explaining how displacing the air results in a reduction of weight rather than a gain, or just admit your model is wrong?

Why would it have a massive increase in weight?
All you have done is evacuated atmosphere from the jar and that atmosphere just takes it's place as part of the external atmosphere that is already pushing down on the jar as the jar is resisting that push by it's own dense mass.

Because, according to you, displacing atmosphere is what causes weight.
As you remove the air from the container, you are displacing the air from the container.
As such, it would weigh much more than the empty container.

Why would it act any differently to any other method of displacing air?
Or are you now saying that displacing air isn't what actually causes weight and instead something else does (like gravity).

Before appealing to the atmospheric pressure, that is pushing in all directions, not just down, so that doesn't work.

So, spouting pure crap?

You are yet to show that gravity is a lie or that atmospheric pressure even comes close to explaining why things have weight.

You have yet to show gravity is a truth.
I have explained my part in many different ways, none of which suits you because you haven't got a clue.
You're just a spouting mouthpiece that looks for acceptance from your forum peers.

according to you, displacing atmosphere is what causes weight.
As you remove the air from the container, you are displacing the air from the container.
As such, it would weigh much more than the empty container.

A DENSE OBJECT DISPLACING ATMOSPHERE IS WHAT CAUSES A WEIGHT MEASUREMENT ON A SCALE PLATE.

Why would it act any differently to any other method of displacing air?
Or are you now saying that displacing air isn't what actually causes weight and instead something else does (like gravity).

Before appealing to the atmospheric pressure, that is pushing in all directions, not just down, so that doesn't work.

One day you might dare to understand it. You're too weak to do so as it stands.

You have yet to show gravity is a truth.

That is because this thread is for discussing your nonsense, not gravity, regardless of how much you try to deflect.
You are yet to show gravity is a lie or is incapable of explaining something.
Yet I have shown your idea contradicts reality.

I have explained my part in many different ways, none of which suits you because you haven't got a clue.

No. None of which suits me as it doesn't address the issue.

You're just a spouting mouthpiece that looks for acceptance from your forum peers.

No. I don't give a damn about acceptance from people here.
All I care about is the truth, and the truth is that you cannot explain a simple observation.

A DENSE OBJECT DISPLACING ATMOSPHERE IS WHAT CAUSES A WEIGHT MEASUREMENT ON A SCALE PLATE.

And what determines the objects density?

And if that is the case, how is the atmosphere involved?
It clearly isn't a result of the displacement of the atmosphere if it depends on the density of the object.
It seems more like it is just the density of the object which determines it.

One day you might dare to understand it. You're too weak to do so as it stands.

Again, I do understand.
If I was weak, I would have accepted your bullshit, or just given up.

Instead, I will continue bringing it up until you either admit your idea is flawed, or you can actually explain it.

this thread is for discussing your nonsense, not gravity, regardless of how much you try to deflect.
You are yet to show gravity is a lie or is incapable of explaining something.
Yet I have shown your idea contradicts reality.

Ok no problem...just make sure you don't mention gravity in this thread from now on or I'll be forced to hand your arse to you on a plate.

what determines the objects density?

The make up of the actual object. the structure of it.

And if that is the case, how is the atmosphere involved?
It clearly isn't a result of the displacement of the atmosphere if it depends on the density of the object.
It seems more like it is just the density of the object which determines it.

Determines what?

I will continue bringing it up until you either admit your idea is flawed, or you can actually explain it.

Keep going for as long as you're able but remember...keep coming out with nonsense and you will be treated as a nuisance nonsensical nobody.
Show that you're trying and you'll be dealt with.
Ranting on and pissing your hot pants is not going to get you very far, other than stinking of dried stale piss on piss if you don't change your stance.

Ok no problem...just make sure you don't mention gravity in this thread from now on or I'll be forced to hand your arse to you on a plate.

You couldn't hand someone their ass if their life depended on it. So far all you have done is made a joke of yourself.
And you were the one that kept bringing it up.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2017, 02:09:29 AM

what determines the objects density?

The make up of the actual object. the structure of it.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2017, 02:09:29 AM

And if that is the case, how is the atmosphere involved?
It clearly isn't a result of the displacement of the atmosphere if it depends on the density of the object.
It seems more like it is just the density of the object which determines it.

Determines what?

It's weight.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2017, 02:09:29 AM

I will continue bringing it up until you either admit your idea is flawed, or you can actually explain it.

Keep going for as long as you're able but remember...keep coming out with nonsense and you will be treated as a nuisance nonsensical nobody.
Show that you're trying and you'll be dealt with.
Ranting on and pissing your hot pants is not going to get you very far, other than stinking of dried stale piss on piss if you don't change your stance.

I'm not the one bringing up nonsense.
I am bringing up flaws in your idea.
Flaws you are not able to explain away.

I have no reason to change my stance until you admit your idea doesn't work or you can actually explain things.

You couldn't hand someone their ass if their life depended on it. So far all you have done is made a joke of yourself.
And you were the one that kept bringing it up.

I'm fine here. I hope you're fine sitting there with your arse on your lap after I handed it to you.

I'm not the one bringing up nonsense.
I am bringing up flaws in your idea.
Flaws you are not able to explain away.

You can only bring up flaws if you know what you're talking about. You think you do but you are clueless in the main.

I have no reason to change my stance until you admit your idea doesn't work or you can actually explain things.

My idea works fine.
Don't try and run my car if you cannot put the key into the ignition.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2017, 03:54:10 AM

You couldn't hand someone their ass if their life depended on it. So far all you have done is made a joke of yourself.
And you were the one that kept bringing it up.

I'm fine here. I hope you're fine sitting there with your arse on your lap after I handed it to you.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2017, 03:54:10 AM

I'm not the one bringing up nonsense.
I am bringing up flaws in your idea.
Flaws you are not able to explain away.

You can only bring up flaws if you know what you're talking about. You think you do but you are clueless in the main.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 15, 2017, 03:54:10 AM

I have no reason to change my stance until you admit your idea doesn't work or you can actually explain things.

My idea works fine.
Don't try and run my car if you cannot put the key into the ignition.

how can you say that we do not understand denpressure, maybe we understand it way better as you do because of the fact that we find major flaws in it and for this reason we can say that it does not work.
its the same as in my workfield: one guy designs a machine and i look at it and understand the design and can find a major flaw in it. Only who does not understand the design can not find a flaw in it.

From that i take that we understand the idea of denpressure better than you are because we can find flaws in it.

how can you say that we do not understand denpressure, maybe we understand it way better as you do because of the fact that we find major flaws in it and for this reason we can say that it does not work.
its the same as in my workfield: one guy designs a machine and i look at it and understand the design and can find a major flaw in it. Only who does not understand the design can not find a flaw in it.

From that i take that we understand the idea of denpressure better than you are because we can find flaws in it.

Ok then, if that's your stance, then you have no further need to know anything about my model, as you clearly know it better than I do and apparently you've destroyed it.

On that note, you can now jump onto something else....fair enough?

In the meantime, I will carry on putting my model together and explaining it to those who have much more logical minds than you ever will.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 15, 2017, 04:46:53 AM

how can you say that we do not understand denpressure, maybe we understand it way better as you do because of the fact that we find major flaws in it and for this reason we can say that it does not work.
its the same as in my workfield: one guy designs a machine and i look at it and understand the design and can find a major flaw in it. Only who does not understand the design can not find a flaw in it.

From that i take that we understand the idea of denpressure better than you are because we can find flaws in it.

Ok then, if that's your stance, then you have no further need to know anything about my model, as you clearly know it better than I do and apparently you've destroyed it.

On that note, you can now jump onto something else....fair enough?

In the meantime, I will carry on putting my model together and explaining it to those who have much more logical minds than you ever will.

only explain them also the flaws we all showed you, otherwise you do false advertising and lying to the people they ask about that topic.
let explain it a little easier for you:
you are like a car salesperson that want to sell a car with no working brakes.
a other person who checked the car says to you about that flaw.
but you sell it anyway without telling the customer about that flaw.
do you think that is a honest way to be. should not the person who knows the flaws inform the customer about that.

This thread has too many words.

This thread has too many words.

let me put it together in one sentence:

denpressure does not exist because there is no explanation for it that works in the reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2017, 04:50:02 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on February 15, 2017, 04:46:53 AM

how can you say that we do not understand denpressure, maybe we understand it way better as you do because of the fact that we find major flaws in it and for this reason we can say that it does not work.
its the same as in my workfield: one guy designs a machine and i look at it and understand the design and can find a major flaw in it. Only who does not understand the design can not find a flaw in it.

From that i take that we understand the idea of denpressure better than you are because we can find flaws in it.

Ok then, if that's your stance, then you have no further need to know anything about my model, as you clearly know it better than I do and apparently you've destroyed it.

On that note, you can now jump onto something else....fair enough?

In the meantime, I will carry on putting my model together and explaining it to those who have much more logical minds than you ever will.

only explain them also the flaws we all showed you, otherwise you do false advertising and lying to the people they ask about that topic.
let explain it a little easier for you:
you are like a car salesperson that want to sell a car with no working brakes.
a other person who checked the car says to you about that flaw.
but you sell it anyway without telling the customer about that flaw.
do you think that is a honest way to be. should not the person who knows the flaws inform the customer about that.

I'm not selling you anything. You are trying to tell me that all my cars have dodgy brakes. When I ask you how you know, I find you holding the gear stick in your hand shouting "HOW DO i KNOW....HOW DO I KNOW... "...

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 15, 2017, 06:18:25 AM

This thread has too many words.

let me put it together in one sentence:

denpressure does not exist because there is no explanation for it that works in the reality.

Let me counteract.
Denpressure explains everything and makes a reality out of a fiction of gravity.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 15, 2017, 06:04:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2017, 04:50:02 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on February 15, 2017, 04:46:53 AM

how can you say that we do not understand denpressure, maybe we understand it way better as you do because of the fact that we find major flaws in it and for this reason we can say that it does not work.
its the same as in my workfield: one guy designs a machine and i look at it and understand the design and can find a major flaw in it. Only who does not understand the design can not find a flaw in it.

From that i take that we understand the idea of denpressure better than you are because we can find flaws in it.

Ok then, if that's your stance, then you have no further need to know anything about my model, as you clearly know it better than I do and apparently you've destroyed it.

On that note, you can now jump onto something else....fair enough?

In the meantime, I will carry on putting my model together and explaining it to those who have much more logical minds than you ever will.

only explain them also the flaws we all showed you, otherwise you do false advertising and lying to the people they ask about that topic.
let explain it a little easier for you:
you are like a car salesperson that want to sell a car with no working brakes.
a other person who checked the car says to you about that flaw.
but you sell it anyway without telling the customer about that flaw.
do you think that is a honest way to be. should not the person who knows the flaws inform the customer about that.

I'm not selling you anything. You are trying to tell me that all my cars have dodgy brakes. When I ask you how you know, I find you holding the gear stick in your hand shouting "HOW DO i KNOW....HOW DO I KNOW... "...

ok, do a brake test.
test your idea with experiments i mentioned before.
show us that objects in vacuum have no weight.
show that your displacement generates more denpressure on an jar.
but not only say that you did, publish the reports where you show exactly the setup and how you perform that test. So that others can recreate these tests and confirm your findings.

ok, do a brake test.
test your idea with experiments i mentioned before.
show us that objects in vacuum have no weight.

No such thing as a vacuum. You've been told this before.

show that your displacement generates more denpressure on an jar.

You can do this by displacing the atmosphere from a jar with water or something else and seeing that difference on a scale plate with measurement of force as leverage against the object and jar against atmospheric pressure displacement.

but not only say that you did, publish the reports where you show exactly the setup and how you perform that test. So that others can recreate these tests and confirm your findings.

You've seen it done many times. Weighing yourself on big scales does the same thing. It's all there as proof.
What would you like to happen? Do you want speaking scales that say " your atmospheric displacement of the dense mass of your body is 796 lbs due to eating Canadian brown bear meat by the bucket full at beartucky eatery."...Or something?

Quote from: Canadabear on February 15, 2017, 06:56:51 AM

ok, do a brake test.
test your idea with experiments i mentioned before.
show us that objects in vacuum have no weight.

No such thing as a vacuum. You've been told this before.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 15, 2017, 06:56:51 AM

show that your displacement generates more denpressure on an jar.

You can do this by displacing the atmosphere from a jar with water or something else and seeing that difference on a scale plate with measurement of force as leverage against the object and jar against atmospheric pressure displacement.

Quote from: Canadabear on February 15, 2017, 06:56:51 AM

but not only say that you did, publish the reports where you show exactly the setup and how you perform that test. So that others can recreate these tests and confirm your findings.

You've seen it done many times. Weighing yourself on big scales does the same thing. It's all there as proof.
What would you like to happen? Do you want speaking scales that say " your atmospheric displacement of the dense mass of your body is 796 lbs due to eating Canadian brown bear meat by the bucket full at beartucky eatery."...Or something?

i see your problem: you do not know how to perform a scientific test.
you do it this way:
-i have an idea
-i develop a test that shows the result of my idea
-i refuse any other explanation that also get this result.
-i proclaim my idea as true.

the problem is that is not to do a test. here a better way:
-i have an idea
-i develop a test to see if my idea works
-i develop idea what also could produce the same results
-i test the results of my first test with other test if they come to the same result.
-i than decide with view on all done tests if that idea is working, if i have to adjust it or if i have to drop it completely
-i than publish my idea and test reports to get it checked by others.
-at the end of all testing, retesting and verifying it can be said that that idea is true to the current knowledge.

i see your problem: you do not know how to perform a scientific test.
you do it this way:
-i have an idea
-i develop a test that shows the result of my idea
-i refuse any other explanation that also get this result.
-i proclaim my idea as true.

the problem is that is not to do a test. here a better way:
-i have an idea
-i develop a test to see if my idea works
-i develop idea what also could produce the same results
-i test the results of my first test with other test if they come to the same result.
-i than decide with view on all done tests if that idea is working, if i have to adjust it or if i have to drop it completely
-i than publish my idea and test reports to get it checked by others.
-at the end of all testing, retesting and verifying it can be said that that idea is true to the current knowledge.

What if I don't want to do any of that?
What if I've already done tests but do not want to share it with people like you?

What gives you the right to tell me to do tests to prove something to you when you will not do any tests to prove anything to me?

Stick the gear lever back in the slot and stop telling me the brakes have failed. Push yourself forward in your seat as far forward as you can get until your little nose touches the bottom of the steering wheel.
Try and reach the middle pedal if the car is manual or the big fat pedal if it's auto.
If you can't reach them, then put some blocks on your shoes until you feel the brakes depress, then see if the car stops.

If it does, then you know my brakes are fine.
If it doesn't, then you are smaller than I thought you were, which means, larger  James Cagney shoe blocks.

If at first you don't brake. Try try try, again.

Well Scepti, since you are apparently the second coming of Einstein why don't you publish your theory in scientific journals and win a nobel prize.

Well Scepti, since you are apparently the second coming of Einstein why don't you publish your theory in scientific journals and win a Nobel prize.

Here's a story for you.
A young boy tried so hard to get into his school play. He spent months and months perfecting being a little Abraham Lincoln.
He actually studied so hard to memorise the words and actually try to sound like what people would believe Abraham Lincoln sounded like.
He also made the clothes that were so close to the clothes Lincoln wore.
He actually went to the audition for that play. He'd spent all that time making sure his audition was as perfect as could be.
Months and months of hard work and a auditioning performance that was so good it was almost genius.
Unfortunately the teachers didn't quite want what was on offer and he didn't get the part.

He looked so good and as identical and yet he was simply turned down in favour of an audition that didn't really show a reality.
He set off home dejected but happy that he knew in his heart he could do no more.
He didn't quite reach home. He was assassinated before he turned into his street.


Do you really think I could get a Nobel prize? 

Quote from: Albert Wesker on February 15, 2017, 08:15:40 AM

Well Scepti, since you are apparently the second coming of Einstein why don't you publish your theory in scientific journals and win a Nobel prize.

Here's a story for you.
A young boy tried so hard to get into his school play. He spent months and months perfecting being a little Abraham Lincoln.
He actually studied so hard to memorise the words and actually try to sound like what people would believe Abraham Lincoln sounded like.
He also made the clothes that were so close to the clothes Lincoln wore.
He actually went to the audition for that play. He'd spent all that time making sure his audition was as perfect as could be.
Months and months of hard work and a auditioning performance that was so good it was almost genius.
Unfortunately the teachers didn't quite want what was on offer and he didn't get the part.

He looked so good and as identical and yet he was simply turned down in favour of an audition that didn't really show a reality.
He set off home dejected but happy that he knew in his heart he could do no more.
He didn't quite reach home. He was assassinated before he turned into his street.


Do you really think I could get a Nobel prize? 

Well, you have made the greatest discovery in mankind's history since sliced bread, casting down the false gods of science. You will be heralded as the greatest scientific mind the world has or will ever have known. Plus you get over a million dollars.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2017, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on February 15, 2017, 08:15:40 AM

Well Scepti, since you are apparently the second coming of Einstein why don't you publish your theory in scientific journals and win a Nobel prize.

Here's a story for you.
A young boy tried so hard to get into his school play. He spent months and months perfecting being a little Abraham Lincoln.
He actually studied so hard to memorise the words and actually try to sound like what people would believe Abraham Lincoln sounded like.
He also made the clothes that were so close to the clothes Lincoln wore.
He actually went to the audition for that play. He'd spent all that time making sure his audition was as perfect as could be.
Months and months of hard work and a auditioning performance that was so good it was almost genius.
Unfortunately the teachers didn't quite want what was on offer and he didn't get the part.

He looked so good and as identical and yet he was simply turned down in favour of an audition that didn't really show a reality.
He set off home dejected but happy that he knew in his heart he could do no more.
He didn't quite reach home. He was assassinated before he turned into his street.


Do you really think I could get a Nobel prize? 

Well, you have made the greatest discovery in mankind's history since sliced bread, casting down the false gods of science. You will be heralded as the greatest scientific mind the world has or will ever have known. Plus you get over a million dollars.

I think an assassins bullet might be more apt.
I don't think destroying gravity will be taken lightly...do you?

My denpressure destroys space travel in every form told to us with every man made fictional effigy.
It also destroys the astronomers lives because they believed they were looking into space.

I don't think the world is ready for my theory...do you?

Quote from: Albert Wesker on February 15, 2017, 08:31:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2017, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on February 15, 2017, 08:15:40 AM

Well Scepti, since you are apparently the second coming of Einstein why don't you publish your theory in scientific journals and win a Nobel prize.

Here's a story for you.
A young boy tried so hard to get into his school play. He spent months and months perfecting being a little Abraham Lincoln.
He actually studied so hard to memorise the words and actually try to sound like what people would believe Abraham Lincoln sounded like.
He also made the clothes that were so close to the clothes Lincoln wore.
He actually went to the audition for that play. He'd spent all that time making sure his audition was as perfect as could be.
Months and months of hard work and a auditioning performance that was so good it was almost genius.
Unfortunately the teachers didn't quite want what was on offer and he didn't get the part.

He looked so good and as identical and yet he was simply turned down in favour of an audition that didn't really show a reality.
He set off home dejected but happy that he knew in his heart he could do no more.
He didn't quite reach home. He was assassinated before he turned into his street.


Do you really think I could get a Nobel prize? 

Well, you have made the greatest discovery in mankind's history since sliced bread, casting down the false gods of science. You will be heralded as the greatest scientific mind the world has or will ever have known. Plus you get over a million dollars.

I think an assassins bullet might be more apt.
I don't think destroying gravity will be taken lightly...do you?

My denpressure destroys space travel in every form told to us with every man made fictional effigy.
It also destroys the astronomers lives because they believed they were looking into space.

I don't think the world is ready for my theory...do you?

There's only one way to find out. Take the leap, man. Do it for the betterment of all mankind. For all the future generations. For all the moonshramp.

What if I don't want to do any of that?
What if I've already done tests but do not want to share it with people like you?

Why not? are you afraid that we will disprove these test and find flaws in it

What gives you the right to tell me to do tests to prove something to you when you will not do any tests to prove anything to me?

because you make the claim that denpressre is real, therefor you have to prove it is.

Stick the gear lever back in the slot and stop telling me the brakes have failed. Push yourself forward in your seat as far forward as you can get until your little nose touches the bottom of the steering wheel.
Try and reach the middle pedal if the car is manual or the big fat pedal if it's auto.
If you can't reach them, then put some blocks on your shoes until you feel the brakes depress, then see if the car stops.

it is even a brake existing

If it does, then you know my brakes are fine.
If it doesn't, then you are smaller than I thought you were, which means, larger  James Cagney shoe blocks.

If at first you don't brake. Try try try, again.

no point try to push a paddle that is not existing

There's only one way to find out. Take the leap, man. Do it for the betterment of all mankind. For all the future generations. For all the moonshramp.

Yeah, I'll do it tomorrow.

I think an assassins bullet might be more apt.
I don't think destroying gravity will be taken lightly...do you?

My denpressure destroys space travel in every form told to us with every man made fictional effigy.
It also destroys the astronomers lives because they believed they were looking into space.

I don't think the world is ready for my theory...do you?

ok you are afraid to be killed if you make you findings public.
but why do you post them here? this is public.

therefor would it not be better for you to shut up and keep your ideas for your self before NASA reads this and find you and kills you.

Why not? are you afraid that we will disprove these test and find flaws in it

Nope, not at all. I welcome real questions but I do expect people to use logic. You fail in that department.

because you make the claim that denpressre is real, therefor you have to prove it is.

I can prove it.

no point try to push a paddle that is not existing

There you go trying to stick your oar in again.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 15, 2017, 08:35:11 AM

I think an assassins bullet might be more apt.
I don't think destroying gravity will be taken lightly...do you?

My denpressure destroys space travel in every form told to us with every man made fictional effigy.
It also destroys the astronomers lives because they believed they were looking into space.

I don't think the world is ready for my theory...do you?

ok you are afraid to be killed if you make you findings public.
but why do you post them here? this is public.

therefor would it not be better for you to shut up and keep your ideas for your self before NASA reads this and find you and kills you.

I'll just blame you.