I'm not interested in whether people like you understand anything. Do what you want to do.
Yes, because you a realise I am not stupid and foolish enough for you to con. You are only interested in gullible fools that might accept your ignorant bullshit.
The people I'm interested in are those that can think for themselves without being peer pressured by frenzied people like yourself.
Stop lying. The people you are interested in are those not smart enough (or not willing) to think for themselves, such that they will just accept the crap you try and feed them without thinking or questioning.
I do think for myself, I realised you model was pure garbage. I provided examples of why this is the case, using your model to make a prediction, which failed to match reality.
When I did this, all you were capable of doing in response was insulting me or ignoring me.
So stop lying.
They don't.
Yes, you are correct, there is a very tiny difference due to buoyancy. The aluminium falls ever so slightly slower, the exact opposite of what your model predicts.
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.
No. It is quite possible and happens quite frequently.
Density is mass per unit volume. You can have different densities regardless of volume.
I think what you meant to claim (which would still be ignorant garbage) is that it is impossible to have different densities.
But almost everyone knows that is bullshit.
So a 1-inch cube of styrofoam and a 1-inch cube of lead have the same density?
Nope.
So you admit that you were full of shit and objects can have the same volume while having a different density.
They don't have the same volume, at all.
So you don't know what volume is. Are you confusing mass and volume?
What is your idea of volume, as it clearly isn't what volume is.
A tennis ball and a lead ball of exact same size do not have the same volume because they do not have the same density.
Get it understood.
No, you get it understood.
Density is mass per unit volume.
As such, 2 objects, of different density can have the same volume, but then must have a different mass.
If you think you can't, then you will have 2 different volumes. Thus one will have more volume than the other. As the tennis ball is hollow and needs to be treated as a whole, make sure you have less volume of the tennis ball. Then break of parts of the lead ball until they have the same volume. You will then have 2 objects with different densities with the same volume.
Also, you get it understood, volume is a measure of size. If 2 objects are the same size then by definition they have the same volume.
Two objects with an exact volume of 1 cubic inch each would be equal in density too .
Not necessarily. You can have 2 objects with an exact volume of 1 cubic inch with different densities. Try it with water and oil.
My definition of density is very simple.
It's how much matter in any object that can displace atmosphere.
That makes it an extensive property, not an intensive property like density is, so it fails. That seems to be more akin to mass.
Density is quite simple, it is mass per unit volume.
The volume is how much atmosphere can occupy that same dense object.
You mean the void left behind by that object?
In that case you can take a 1 cubic inch lead ball and a 1 cubic inch styrofoam ball, and have them displace the same amount of atmosphere and thus have the same volume. But their matter is completely different meaning they do not have the same density, either in reality or in your BS definitions.
It's a key issue that defines denpressure and wipes out nonsense gravity.
No it doesn't. It ignores reality and tries to use circular reasoning to define things.
It also makes no sense at all as things like helium filled balloons need to displace negative atmosphere.
It still has no explanation for why it happens in the first place.
One displaces more atmosphere than the other, or if you want to go the other way. One absorbs more atmosphere than the other.
No. They displace the same volume of atmosphere.
No. Do it yourself or leave it. I'm not arsed either way.
I did remember. I showed your claim was full of shit, after which you just insulted me and ignored me.
You aren't simply making a baseless claim, you are making a claim which has been proven to be wrong.
Interesting but by that definition the density listed on the periodic table of elements would be identical for every element. That's clearly not the case.
Why?
Because you can get a volume of any element, and get the same volume of any other element. By your BS they must have the same density.
What simple experiment?
Get a solid, empty container which can be made air-tight.
Weigh this container to determine its mass (or do some other experiment to determine its mass).
Then evacuate this container, removing air from it and thus having it displace more air.
Weigh it again (or otherwise determine its mass). By your baseless BS, it should weigh more as more air has been displaced, but instead, we find it weighs less.
Now, without letting in any air, fill it with some other fluid like water or oil. By your BS, as you aren't introducing any air, it should weigh the same. If anything, a small amount of air will get in and it should thus weigh less. But instead, we find it weighs more.
So your BS is quite easily disproven.
An even simpler one is to simply get 2 liquids, such as water and oil, and weigh 1L of both.
They are both 1L, they both displace the same volume of atmosphere. As such, they should both weigh the same with your BS. But they don't.
Or you can do a simple test for buoyancy (which you are still yet to explain in your BS model).
Take 2 objects of the same mass, such as mercury and oil. As the objects have the same mass, by your BS they must have the same volume and thus displace the same amount of a fluid. Put them both in water. As they displace the same amount of water, both should have the same experience, with both floating or both sinking. But once again, reality proves you're full of shit with the mercury sinking and oil floating.
No need for mathematical formulas to get the understanding. It just requires the ability to want to.
Yes, the "ability" to want to discard reality and pretend your delusional crap works, ignoring all the evidence which shows it to be pure bullshit.
What you need to remember though is, a scale plate and mechanism inside a evacuation chamber can alter.
There's an experiment already on youtube if you want to look.
That depends upon the mechanism. For most kinds, there is no issue.
Again, if you wish to assert there is you need to justify your claim.
The spring constant does not depend upon atmospheric pressure.
I bet they would show different. I know this for sure but they still don't prove anything due to the scales being manipulated by the evacuation of pressure.
Yes, by a tiny amount, in the wrong direction for your model.
The lead ball in air will displacing a volume of air resulting in it weighing slightly less, but that is the exact opposite of what you need.
Again, scales are not manipulated by the evacuation of pressure.
It has some potential to show change but not enough to convince some.
It is enough to convince any rational person that is honestly seeking the truth. It is not enough to convince people like you that have no concern for the truth and just want to live in a delusional fantasy world.
Just remember, no matter what chamber it is that's being evacuated it will never be a vacuum.
No, it will be a vacuum, just not a perfect one, but it doesn't need to be.
A true vacuum would evacuate ALL of the atmosphere from any object. It would render that object not an object.
You are aware objects aren't made up of the atmosphere?
Ok so you push the water away from the chamber and that water is now added into the surrounding water and is now adding more pressure to the external chamber, with the internal chamber being weaker in terms of withstanding the pressure due to no equilibrium.
Which would then require all other objects in the vicinity to magically weigh more, but they don't. Instead you just have the chamber weighing slightly less.
If the scales are inside the chamber, then the rigid chamber shields it from the pressure outside, so that argument is irrelevant. The key part is the pressure inside the chamber is less, so less atmosphere is displaced so the object should weigh less. But it doesn't. Instead it weighs slightly more.
It's because all you do is whine.
Pointing out your BS or asking you to back up your baseless, false claims is not whining.
A full scuba tank has compressed gases into liquid to hold more atmosphere, obviously.
An empty tank only has the equal atmospheric pressure with the outside.
Drop one into water and it'll be pushed down because it'll displace that water.
The other one will require you to push down to displace the same amount of water.
So you have one tank hold more atmosphere, which means it should weigh less and thus float. Meanwhile, over in reality, the tank holding more atmosphere weighs more.
One of those experiments is using a centrifuge inside a evacuated chamber.
This alone proves my point but not one of you will attempt it......why?
No, it doesn't prove your point. Especially as you aren't willing to do it either.
The reason none of us will attempt it is because it will require significant effort, requiring transmission of power into a vacuum chamber, which a typical vacuum chamber doesn't allow, with a power cord breaking the seal preventing a vacuum from forming.
Even if we did do it, you would simply ignore it like you have ignored other experiments we have presented to you, or you would complain that it isn't a perfect vacuum, or say some other crap like that to dismiss it.
Until you do the experiment, it does not prove your point.
That video is absolute nonsense.
See what I mean?
When you are confronted by an experiment which shows you to be full of shit what is your response? Do you rationally analyse the video, explaining what flaws there are? No. You just dismiss it as nonsense because it shows your model to be full of shit.
Yet you expect us to waste a significant amount of time to do an experiment for you, which you will just dismiss?
Grow up.
Yep and it proves that centripetal or fugal force is down to atmospheric pressure and nothing more.
No it doesn't.
Do you have any evidence of this experiment, or just a baseless claim of it?
Just that one experiment.
No it doesnt', as inertia still exists, even in a vacuum.
I'll resume on Jan 26th 2018.
Be good.
What's the matter? Need to take some time off to recover from having your ass handed to you repeatedly?