Denspressure vs Reality

I like the way scepti is not only taking on forum members, but reality itself.

Am I taking on reality or am I fighting against misinformation and fantasy. That's the real question.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 04:51:27 AM

Yep. That's almost exactly what it would do in a closed system of a spherical container.
Put you inside of it and you become part of that pressure change and you would change by compressive force in that equilibrium.

So then, wouldn't that make passengers on a commercial flight weightless? Which doesn't happen of course, they only do when the plane stops accelerating against the ground with it's lift and thrust and drops (zero-G plane). But if pressure equalizes in a closed system, the stack that pushes us to the surface doesn't exist, so then what gives us weight on a plane?

It's not the stack that pushes you to the floor. You push yourself to the floor by your own dense mass pushing it's own displaced atmosphere and that atmosphere crushes back from which the body resists by being crushed against a more dense mass (solid ground).
The same applies inside a container that is pressurised.
Your dense mass is still displacing the pressure inside and using a solid base to do so, which is the chamber floor or a chair and legs on that floor, or whatever.

Quote

They are under equilibrium, horizontally but that would change if the plane alters course to become less than horizontal, either nose up or down.

Yeah, because from my understanding, if the plane changes position, our weight would be affected, an extreme scenario would be a nose-diving plane with passengers weightless, but if pressure is equalized in the cabin, then there is no reason for them to have similar weight on the plane as they do against the pressure stack on the ground.

It's a slosh effect.
Think of it like a plane full of water.
If that water is undisturbed it will stay fairly calm.
Tip the plane up or sideways or whatever and you create a friction movement of that water against the inside of the plane, or a slosh effect or a surge.
Atmosphere is similar except the slosh is less severe by compression of molecules against water which is more compressed and dense molecules that do not compress very much at all to our perceivement.

It requires much more in depth explanation but isn'#t worth it until the grasp of denpressure is being understood enough to carry it on.

Quote

There is an obvious resistance to pressure change as we are discussing.
Inertia goes way further than the reality. It goes into the fantasy of setting something in motion and it will continue in motion unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
This is where space comes in to set off the fantasy of a mass in movement will simply continue forever and it's crap.

Newton's laws of motion have been well known for awhile, but I see, your model doesn't include them, a different understanding it seems. So, when we turn a tight corner on a car, I feel a g-force that pushes me the other way, what is that?

Slosh effect like in the plane.

Also, if I accelerate, I feel a push, and if I slow suddenly by pressing the brakes, I push forwards (those are examples of acceleration, a change in velocity, whether changing direction, speeding up, or slowing down) but not if I keep constant speed. How does that work in your model?

Slosh effect like in the plane.

Quote

And also the atmosphere that the mercury in the container has taken up and is also resisting that pressure of it's own dense mass.

Of course, that is why when the pressure presses against the mercury, it resists it, it's density resists the push, that is quite clear and obvious, but how is this important?

It's important because it's how barometers work and how everything works. It's just a case of getting your head around the different ways it does all work but with the same principles.

Quote

It's not the mercury that expands less, it's what expanded against it's dense mass.

Which pushes it up the tube less.

No. It pushes it down the tube more against the less pressure of the atmosphere upon the mercury in the dish.
Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Not as straight forward as you may think.
I'll explain this as we go on as a singular piece to answer to.

I'd be interested to know how measured air pressure correlates to weight in your model then.
[/quote]Whatever atmospheric pressure your dense mass displaces at any time will be measured on a man made scale plate that is set to that environment.

Quote

The mercury takes up it's own dense mass of atmosphere and it's that dense mass that is resisting its own displacement of that atmosphere

You mean it's density/mass resisting the pressure push.

Density/mass of any object resisting it's own displacement of atmosphere.

Quote

and if that atmosphere becomes more expanded or condensed due to the suns movement, etc or raining, then the mercury will still be resisting more or less of this atmospheric pressure change, which will show in the tube.

From what I know, mercury barometers are simply set up to measure the push of air pressure, temperature and such impacting the mercury is accounted for. So, what exactly other than pressure impacts the drop and rise of mercury in the tube?

Temperature is agitation of atmospheric molecules. That's it.
Rub your hands together and feel the build up of heat.
Simple yes but then again so is life inside this cell of Earth if you take the time to look at it from the basic lowest level.

Thought of another.  Air bubbles traveling to the top of the water disproves denpressure.

The mere fact that there is air bubbles travelling to the top of water is more proof for denpressure not against it.
To have air bubbles means those air bubbles are trapped and agitation of the molecules inside those air bubbles expand then and as that happens, the dense water tries to crush them back to their original state but only manages to crush them up because the air bubbles are too big for the dense water molecules due to expansion against them, as in the expansion pushes the water molecules away and those water molecules crush back ( think of why rockets work with this thought and you'll realise why space rockets don't work).

Now if you notice with an air bubble at the bottom of a kettle, you will see that those bubbles start to appear as small just sticking around the element and what not.
As they expand as the kettle element agitates them, you see then expand and start to rise up and the more the energy is the element is cranked up the more the water tries to crush the more expanded molecules in those air bubbles and you see them as large bubbling and popping bubbles, or boiling water.

There's no need for fictional forces like gravity and such.
It's so simple just as life is when you break it all down.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 11:16:20 PM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on November 22, 2017, 10:00:52 AM

Scepti, have you ever ridden a roller coaster that goes in a loop?

Yes I have.

And why doesn't it stop as soon as it starts going up the loop?
What keeps it going?

Deceleration from the effects of acceleration.

Correct but that's not what I'm arguing against.

It effectively is.
It goes up a hill and keeps moving rather than stopping straight away.

Once the flat to gradient comes into play you are carrying on an effect of level motion by apllied energy pushing onto a gradient. It's almost like the spring board for that incline, if you like.

No extra energy is applied. It is nothing like a spring board.

It may be sort of constant on the flat but once that flat ends, it changes velocity

That's right, it starts slowing down as you would expect it to under mainstream science.

I am talking about a constant velocity at full thrust and then an immediate fuel cut off .

And you are yet to justify why that is needed.

Anyone knows that going up a hill in a car they have to change down a gear to keep a constant speed (assuming a steep hill) and anyone knows that the higher you go up that hill the more you have to drop down a gear until you are at first gear. All to keep a certain constant speed.

No, they don't know that the higher up you go the more you have to drop.
Your height up the hill is irrelevant to what gear you need to be in.
People know that you need to drop to a lower gear such that your car has more power at the wheels as it now needs to fight gravity.
Those that do need to shift down gears also don't typically maintain a constant speed. Instead they gradually slow down, shifting down further as they drop down.

To carry on keeping a constant speed as you go even higher in the lowest gear, you have to keep adding more gas from the pedal. All this just to keep you pushing that particular piece of road each inch.

Nope. To maintain a constant speed up a constant slope you apply the same amount of gas.

The very instant you cut power, you stop dead and start to roll back.
You do not carry on rolling up hill.

Pure bullshit.
You keep on rolling up the hill for a bit.

Am I taking on reality or am I fighting against misinformation and fantasy. That's the real question.

You are taking on reality by spreading misinformation and fantasy.

You push yourself to the floor by your own dense mass pushing it's own displaced atmosphere and that atmosphere crushes back from which the body resists by being crushed against a more dense mass (solid ground).

So is it your dense mass or is it the atmosphere pushing you down?

The same applies inside a container that is pressurised.

Yes, where if you are against a wall of a container and try pushing into the air you would be crushed back against the wall. What a shame that doesn't happen.

Your dense mass is still displacing the pressure inside and using a solid base to do so, which is the chamber floor or a chair and legs on that floor, or whatever.

Yes or "whatever", including the wall or the roof. The floor shouldn't be special in your model.

It's a slosh effect.

You failed miserably at explaining that.
Things slosh due to inertia.

Think of it like a plane full of water.
If that water is undisturbed it will stay fairly calm.
Tip the plane up or sideways or whatever and you create a friction movement of that water against the inside of the plane, or a slosh effect or a surge.

Nope. Friction has basically nothing to do with it.

It requires much more in depth explanation but isn'#t worth it until the grasp of denpressure is being understood enough to carry it on.

No, the real explanation is quite simple.
What you mean is that you require so many BS excuses to pretend it works and you are already having enough of your model torn to shreds.

Slosh effect like in the plane.

So inertia.

It's important because it's how barometers work and how everything works. It's just a case of getting your head around the different ways it does all work but with the same principles.

Except your principles don't work.
The density itself doesn't magically resist it. Instead the mass acted upon by gravity does.

No. It pushes it down the tube more against the less pressure of the atmosphere upon the mercury in the dish.

HOW???
The pressure inside the tube is practically nothing.
That is much less than the pressure of the atmosphere upon the mercury in the dish.
That means the atmosphere outside wins and should push the mercury all the way up the tube.

Simple yes but then again so is life inside this cell of Earth if you take the time to look at it from the basic lowest level.

You mean when you ignore all the complexities or try to analyse 2 things at once which shows your "simple" understanding to be pure bullshit?

the dense water tries to crush them back to their original state

What magic original state?

Now if you notice with an air bubble at the bottom of a kettle, you will see that those bubbles start to appear as small just sticking around the element

Due to surface tension.

the more the water tries to crush the more expanded molecules in those air bubbles and you see them as large bubbling and popping bubbles, or boiling water.

And when it is boiling do you know what is inside those bubbles? WATER!!!

There's no need for fictional forces like gravity and such.

No, there is no need for fictional garbage like denspressure, which you have failed to explain even simple things with.
Meanwhile gravity works fine without all your convoluted nonsense.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 22, 2017, 11:23:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 11:16:20 PM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on November 22, 2017, 10:00:52 AM

Scepti, have you ever ridden a roller coaster that goes in a loop?

Yes I have.

And why doesn't it stop as soon as it starts going up the loop?
What keeps it going?

Deceleration from the effects of acceleration.

Deceleration would stop it, not have it keep going.
And the only acceleration is when it is falling.

So again, why does it keep going?
Why doesn't it stop as soon as it starts going up the loop?

Deceleration would stop it, not have it keep going.
And the only acceleration is when it is falling.

So again, why does it keep going?
Why doesn't it stop as soon as it starts going up the loop?

There's a reason why they call it deceleration.

Would anyone like to help Jack out?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 23, 2017, 01:32:45 AM

Deceleration would stop it, not have it keep going.
And the only acceleration is when it is falling.

So again, why does it keep going?
Why doesn't it stop as soon as it starts going up the loop?

There's a reason why they call it deceleration.

Would anyone like to help Jack out?

Because it slows down.
Notice what it does? SLOWS DOWN!
No immediate stop as you would need.
You need to tell us what keeps it going.
Can you do that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 01:56:04 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 23, 2017, 01:32:45 AM

Deceleration would stop it, not have it keep going.
And the only acceleration is when it is falling.

So again, why does it keep going?
Why doesn't it stop as soon as it starts going up the loop?

There's a reason why they call it deceleration.

Would anyone like to help Jack out?

Because it slows down.
Notice what it does? SLOWS DOWN!
No immediate stop as you would need.
You need to tell us what keeps it going.
Can you do that?

Deceleration is what keeps it going.
You answered it yourself after correcting your first mistake which I've highlighted again.

Deceleration is what keeps it going.
You answered it yourself after correcting your first mistake which I've highlighted again.

No it doesn't.
Deceleration slows it down, eventually bringing it to a stop.
This does not cause it to stop dead immediately, but it doesn't keep it going.

At best you are just stating that it keeps going without any explanation.

You need to explain why it keeps going rather than stops dead immediately.

Quote from: AltSpace on November 22, 2017, 04:57:34 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on November 22, 2017, 04:42:54 PM

Thought of another.  Air bubbles traveling to the top of the water disproves denpressure.

How so? Is there something unique to the Denspressure logic on density and buoyancy?

Yes. The "explanations" for density and buoyancy are mutually contradictory.
In reality a pressure differential is responsible for buoyancy.

The closest thing to denspressure in reality is buoyancy.
This is where the displacement of a fluid results in an upwards force.
This force is proportional to the volume of fluid displaced.
This force is based upon the "stacking" of this fluid.

If you move to a denser fluid, as you are displacing more mass (and the effect of stacking is greater) the force is greater.
If you lower the pressure (for air) you lower the mass of air displaced and thus lower the force.

All the various predictions made by denspressure match this buoyant force with 1 exception, the directionality which Scepti is completely unable to explain.

Basically, I was thinking of it like this, assuming Denspressure logic,
we have water, and a ball, the pressure stack presses against the water, which presses down as well, and a ball inside the medium that is pushed against, which also pushes the ball. But since the ball is less dense and so therefore has more pores, it displaces less, so it weighs less from the stack and the water pushed against weighs less per unit area since it is more dense and so displaces more. This means the differing pushes with the density discrepancies would have the buoyant force and so the ball rises.

Do I understand it right with Sceptimatic's reasoning or does it work differently under Denspressure?

It's not the stack that pushes you to the floor. You push yourself to the floor by your own dense mass pushing it's own displaced atmosphere and that atmosphere crushes back from which the body resists by being crushed against a more dense mass (solid ground).

Isn't that the same thing? The volume of the mass being pressed against by pressure will resist it of course. But this will ultimately press you to the floor. The more atmosphere it takes in, it would act more like a cushion and so weigh less with lower density, correct?

The same applies inside a container that is pressurised.
Your dense mass is still displacing the pressure inside and using a solid base to do so, which is the chamber floor or a chair and legs on that floor, or whatever.

Which would press all around the mass, unlike in Denspressure.

It's a slosh effect.
Think of it like a plane full of water.
If that water is undisturbed it will stay fairly calm.
Tip the plane up or sideways or whatever and you create a friction movement of that water against the inside of the plane, or a slosh effect or a surge.
Atmosphere is similar except the slosh is less severe by compression of molecules against water which is more compressed and dense molecules that do not compress very much at all to our perceivement.

How does this deal with the issue of being weightless on a plane?
If pressure settles, it presses all around, and so has no preferred direction, so why do we have weight on an closed airplane?

Slosh effect like in the plane.

So it is like friction of the mass against the atmosphere?

It's important because it's how barometers work and how everything works. It's just a case of getting your head around the different ways it does all work but with the same principles.

But how is it relevant here? We know that mercury rises to specific height's on average, but fluctuates.

No. It pushes it down the tube more against the less pressure of the atmosphere upon the mercury in the dish.
Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Which presses less under lower pressure, that is basic.

Whatever atmospheric pressure your dense mass displaces at any time will be measured on a man made scale plate that is set to that environment.

And it correlates with barometer measurements?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:21:27 AM

Deceleration is what keeps it going.
You answered it yourself after correcting your first mistake which I've highlighted again.

No it doesn't.
Deceleration slows it down, eventually bringing it to a stop.
This does not cause it to stop dead immediately, but it doesn't keep it going.

At best you are just stating that it keeps going without any explanation.

You need to explain why it keeps going rather than stops dead immediately.

I've never said deceleration brings it to a dead stop.
How in the hell you can come to this after all the explanations, is beyond me.

Basically, I was thinking of it like this, assuming Denspressure logic,
we have water, and a ball, the pressure stack presses against the water, which presses down as well, and a ball inside the medium that is pushed against, which also pushes the ball. But since the ball is less dense and so therefore has more pores, it displaces less, so it weighs less from the stack and the water pushed against weighs less per unit area since it is more dense and so displaces more. This means the differing pushes with the density discrepancies would have the buoyant force and so the ball rises.

Do I understand it right with Sceptimatic's reasoning or does it work differently under Denspressure?

The problem is now compare this with something with the same weight, e.g. a steel ball that is much smaller.
The same volume of water is displaced so the force should be the same, yet the steel ball sinks and the other ball rises.
You need something else, some force acting on the fluid itself causing it to fall, but as soon as you have that, the pressure is no longer the cause.

This is a recurring problem with his denspressure, he can't even explain the initial stack.

I've never said deceleration brings it to a dead stop.
How in the hell you can come to this after all the explanations, is beyond me.

I didn't come to that.
Why do you feel the need to continually misrepresent what I have said?

Deceleration is the process you need to explain.
You have the roller coaster/car/ball/whatever travelling up the hill without a force being applied to keep it going.
By your reasoning, without inertia to keep it going, it should stop dead and start falling back down.
Instead we observe it deccelerate over time before stopping and starting to fall back down.
WHY?

Quote from: AltSpace on November 23, 2017, 02:29:14 AM

Basically, I was thinking of it like this, assuming Denspressure logic,
we have water, and a ball, the pressure stack presses against the water, which presses down as well, and a ball inside the medium that is pushed against, which also pushes the ball. But since the ball is less dense and so therefore has more pores, it displaces less, so it weighs less from the stack and the water pushed against weighs less per unit area since it is more dense and so displaces more. This means the differing pushes with the density discrepancies would have the buoyant force and so the ball rises.

Do I understand it right with Sceptimatic's reasoning or does it work differently under Denspressure?

The problem is now compare this with something with the same weight, e.g. a steel ball that is much smaller.
The same volume of water is displaced so the force should be the same, yet the steel ball sinks and the other ball rises.
You need something else, some force acting on the fluid itself causing it to fall, but as soon as you have that, the pressure is no longer the cause.

This is a recurring problem with his denspressure, he can't even explain the initial stack.

You have a massive inability to actually take notice and this is why you keep ending up back at square one, every time.
Either that or it's deliberate.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 23, 2017, 02:24:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:21:27 AM

Deceleration is what keeps it going.
You answered it yourself after correcting your first mistake which I've highlighted again.

No it doesn't.
Deceleration slows it down, eventually bringing it to a stop.
This does not cause it to stop dead immediately, but it doesn't keep it going.

At best you are just stating that it keeps going without any explanation.

You need to explain why it keeps going rather than stops dead immediately.

I've never said deceleration brings it to a dead stop.
How in the hell you can come to this after all the explanations, is beyond me.

Yes you have "said deceleration brings it to a dead stop". Here read your own words!

The very instant you cut power, you stop dead and start to roll back.
You do not carry on rolling up hill.

Care to explain that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:57:42 AM

I've never said deceleration brings it to a dead stop.
How in the hell you can come to this after all the explanations, is beyond me.

I didn't come to that.
Why do you feel the need to continually misrepresent what I have said?

Deceleration is the process you need to explain.
You have the roller coaster/car/ball/whatever travelling up the hill without a force being applied to keep it going.
By your reasoning, without inertia to keep it going, it should stop dead and start falling back down.
Instead we observe it deccelerate over time before stopping and starting to fall back down.
WHY?

Pay attention.


Your car accelerates downwards before hit hits the bottom where acceleration ceases to be acceleration.
It then changes to deceleration that slows it down from that initial acceleration which is more than enough to ensure it clears a loop due to this deceleration.


This is not what I'm arguing against.



This is not what I'm arguing against.



All you have done with that is used a lot of energy to take the car up to the top and now you have potential energy in that car at the top which will release that earlier energy applied to it by it's own dense mass displacing the atmosphere in the opposite way against the stack, which allows that squeeze down to match the energy applied earlier.



This is not what I'm arguing against.


What I'm arguing against is constant velocity after all of this or in between, in terms of a vertical UPWARD movement under anergy until that vertical UPWARD movement becomes a CONSTANT.


So let's apply energy to the car to get it up that massively high and very steep gradient.
The car will be on a chain but we know it will be sent up at, basically a constant speed.
Now let's snap that chain.
Is that car going to continue to move up or will it immediately stop and then accelerate back down?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:57:42 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 23, 2017, 02:24:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:21:27 AM

Deceleration is what keeps it going.
You answered it yourself after correcting your first mistake which I've highlighted again.

No it doesn't.
Deceleration slows it down, eventually bringing it to a stop.
This does not cause it to stop dead immediately, but it doesn't keep it going.

At best you are just stating that it keeps going without any explanation.

You need to explain why it keeps going rather than stops dead immediately.

I've never said deceleration brings it to a dead stop.
How in the hell you can come to this after all the explanations, is beyond me.

Yes you have "said deceleration brings it to a dead stop". Here read your own words!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 11:29:48 PM

The very instant you cut power, you stop dead and start to roll back.
You do not carry on rolling up hill.

Care to explain that?

I'm reading them and I don't see anywhere where I say deceleration stops something dead.
You're not that desperate are you?

Quote from: rabinoz on November 23, 2017, 11:38:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:57:42 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 23, 2017, 02:24:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:21:27 AM

Deceleration is what keeps it going.
You answered it yourself after correcting your first mistake which I've highlighted again.

No it doesn't.
Deceleration slows it down, eventually bringing it to a stop.
This does not cause it to stop dead immediately, but it doesn't keep it going.

At best you are just stating that it keeps going without any explanation.

You need to explain why it keeps going rather than stops dead immediately.

I've never said deceleration brings it to a dead stop.
How in the hell you can come to this after all the explanations, is beyond me.

Yes you have "said deceleration brings it to a dead stop". Here read your own words!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 11:29:48 PM

The very instant you cut power, you stop dead and start to roll back.
You do not carry on rolling up hill.

Care to explain that?

I'm reading them and I don't see anywhere where I say deceleration stops something dead.
You're not that desperate are you?

You’re deliberately twisting words.

You are telling us that once you remove the power from car travelling up a hill then it will stop dead and will not slow to a stop. This at odds with all evidence. We are trying to provide examples of objects travelling up slopes of varying degrees that also do not stop dead but slow down first.

It is all due to inertia.

You have a massive inability to actually take notice and this is why you keep ending up back at square one, every time.
Either that or it's deliberate.

No, I hav a massive ability to take notice and keep multiple things in my head at once.
I keep ending up back at square one, because you keep contradicting yourself.
You make 1 claim; that's fine (at least under the assumption your model is true).
You then proceed along explaining one thing at that works out fine.
But then you get to something else and make another claim.
With you just trying to focus on one tiny thing at once, you see no issue.
But not me.
I keep that initial claim in my mind, trying to build upon it to create a complete picture.
The issue is that this second claim of yours contradicts the first claim.
So that brings me straight back to square one, your initial claim.

Both claims can't be true.

So "my problem" (which is really your problem), is that I keep multiple things in my head at once and realise contradictions.
That is deliberate to some extent as I intentionally do that when analysing things and intentionally compare the claims to each other.
But this isn't an issue with me. It is an issue with your model.
If your model has to contradict itself to explain reality, it clearly isn't true.

Now I'll end this post and go to the "one thing at a time" in a separate one.

You have brought up to many separate things here for me to just focus on one.
If you want me to focus on one thing at a time, then just say one thing at a time.

It then changes to deceleration that slows it down from that initial acceleration which is more than enough to ensure it clears a loop due to this deceleration.

And why does it do this?
Why does it magically change to deceleration?
Why does the deceleration appear completely independent of the prior acceleration?
Why does this still happen if you have a flat section of constant speed?
Why does this still happen if you proceed up a hill at a constant speed and then cut power (at least below some magic limit you are yet to address)?

What I'm arguing against is constant velocity after all of this or in between, in terms of a vertical UPWARD movement under anergy until that vertical UPWARD movement becomes a CONSTANT.

Why does it matter if it is accelerating beforehand?

So let's apply energy to the car to get it up that massively high and very steep gradient.
The car will be on a chain but we know it will be sent up at, basically a constant speed.
Now let's snap that chain.
Is that car going to continue to move up or will it immediately stop and then accelerate back down?

It will continue to move, slowing down until it eventually comes to a stop and falls back down.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 23, 2017, 11:38:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:57:42 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 23, 2017, 02:24:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:21:27 AM

Deceleration is what keeps it going.
You answered it yourself after correcting your first mistake which I've highlighted again.

No it doesn't.
Deceleration slows it down, eventually bringing it to a stop.
This does not cause it to stop dead immediately, but it doesn't keep it going.

At best you are just stating that it keeps going without any explanation.

You need to explain why it keeps going rather than stops dead immediately.

I've never said deceleration brings it to a dead stop.
How in the hell you can come to this after all the explanations, is beyond me.

Yes you have "said deceleration brings it to a dead stop". Here read your own words!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 11:29:48 PM

The very instant you cut power, you stop dead and start to roll back.
You do not carry on rolling up hill.

Care to explain that?

I'm reading them and I don't see anywhere where I say deceleration stops something dead.
You're not that desperate are you?

No, I'm not desperate in the slightest, just amused that someone can display ignorance like you do.

You said,""The very instant you cut power, you stop dead" .

Surely you must agree that "cutting power" must cause "immediate deceleration"?

You're not that ignorant are you? If you cut power to a car when going up a hill (or on the level) the car must immediately decelerate.

You’re deliberately twisting words.

You are telling us that once you remove the power from car travelling up a hill then it will stop dead and will not slow to a stop. This at odds with all evidence. We are trying to provide examples of objects travelling up slopes of varying degrees that also do not stop dead but slow down first.

It is all due to inertia.

No, I'm not deliberately twisting words.
You people are deliberately using acceleration or deceleration to argue your point.
I'm using constant speed under constant energy applied.

There's a massive difference, so get on that and carry it from there, if you can.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 11:23:34 PM

You have a massive inability to actually take notice and this is why you keep ending up back at square one, every time.
Either that or it's deliberate.

No, I hav a massive ability to take notice and keep multiple things in my head at once.
I keep ending up back at square one, because you keep contradicting yourself.
You make 1 claim; that's fine (at least under the assumption your model is true).
You then proceed along explaining one thing at that works out fine.
But then you get to something else and make another claim.
With you just trying to focus on one tiny thing at once, you see no issue.
But not me.
I keep that initial claim in my mind, trying to build upon it to create a complete picture.
The issue is that this second claim of yours contradicts the first claim.
So that brings me straight back to square one, your initial claim.

Both claims can't be true.

So "my problem" (which is really your problem), is that I keep multiple things in my head at once and realise contradictions.
That is deliberate to some extent as I intentionally do that when analysing things and intentionally compare the claims to each other.
But this isn't an issue with me. It is an issue with your model.
If your model has to contradict itself to explain reality, it clearly isn't true.

Now I'll end this post and go to the "one thing at a time" in a separate one.

My model doesn't contradict itself. Your inability to understand it by reverting to stuff you think I've said is your major problem whether by not being able to grasp it or simply deliberate.

You have brought up to many separate things here for me to just focus on one.
If you want me to focus on one thing at a time, then just say one thing at a time.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 11:46:31 PM

It then changes to deceleration that slows it down from that initial acceleration which is more than enough to ensure it clears a loop due to this deceleration.

And why does it do this?
Why does it magically change to deceleration?
Why does the deceleration appear completely independent of the prior acceleration?
Why does this still happen if you have a flat section of constant speed?
Why does this still happen if you proceed up a hill at a constant speed and then cut power (at least below some magic limit you are yet to address)?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 11:46:31 PM

What I'm arguing against is constant velocity after all of this or in between, in terms of a vertical UPWARD movement under anergy until that vertical UPWARD movement becomes a CONSTANT.

Why does it matter if it is accelerating beforehand?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 11:46:31 PM

So let's apply energy to the car to get it up that massively high and very steep gradient.
The car will be on a chain but we know it will be sent up at, basically a constant speed.
Now let's snap that chain.
Is that car going to continue to move up or will it immediately stop and then accelerate back down?

It will continue to move, slowing down until it eventually comes to a stop and falls back down.

One thing at a time.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 11:48:07 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 23, 2017, 11:38:15 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:57:42 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 23, 2017, 02:24:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2017, 02:21:27 AM

Deceleration is what keeps it going.
You answered it yourself after correcting your first mistake which I've highlighted again.

No it doesn't.
Deceleration slows it down, eventually bringing it to a stop.
This does not cause it to stop dead immediately, but it doesn't keep it going.

At best you are just stating that it keeps going without any explanation.

You need to explain why it keeps going rather than stops dead immediately.

I've never said deceleration brings it to a dead stop.
How in the hell you can come to this after all the explanations, is beyond me.

Yes you have "said deceleration brings it to a dead stop". Here read your own words!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 11:29:48 PM

The very instant you cut power, you stop dead and start to roll back.
You do not carry on rolling up hill.

Care to explain that?

I'm reading them and I don't see anywhere where I say deceleration stops something dead.
You're not that desperate are you?

No, I'm not desperate in the slightest, just amused that someone can display ignorance like you do.

You said,""The very instant you cut power, you stop dead" .

Surely you must agree that "cutting power" must cause "immediate deceleration"?

You're not that ignorant are you? If you cut power to a car when going up a hill (or on the level) the car must immediately decelerate.

You do understand we are talking about vertical movement, right?
You do understand that my argument is about CONSTANT speed against the vertical, right?
You do understand that I'm talking about cutting power at a constant speed at a vertical, right?


Would you like me to bold the words and maybe make them bigger so you understand what I'm arguing about or do you now want to revise your thinking?

You do understand we are talking about vertical movement, right?

Cut power during vertical movement you immediately start to decelerate.

You do understand that my argument is about CONSTANT speed against the vertical, right?

Cut power during CONSTANT speed you immediately start to decelerate.

You do understand that I'm talking about cutting power at a constant speed at a vertical, right?

Cut power during CONSTANT speed you immediately start to decelerate.

Would you like me to bold the words and maybe make them bigger so you understand what I'm arguing about or do you now want to revise your thinking?

If it makes you feel better, you "bold the words and maybe make them bigger" all you like.

But you still do not stop dead!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2017, 12:46:05 AM

You do understand we are talking about vertical movement, right?

Cut power during vertical movement you immediately start to decelerate.

Only under acceleration.

Quote from: sceptimatic

You do understand that my argument is about CONSTANT speed against the vertical, right?

Cut power during CONSTANT speed vertically you immediately start to decelerate.

Nope, you immediately stop and then accelerate.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Would you like me to bold the words and maybe make them bigger so you understand what I'm arguing about or do you now want to revise your thinking?

If it makes you feel better, you "bold the words and maybe make them bigger" all you like.

But you still do not stop dead!

Cutting off power at a constant speed when travelling vertically UP, your vehicle will stop dead and then accelerate back to the ground.

Cutting off power at a constant speed when travelling vertically UP, your vehicle will stop dead and then accelerate back to the ground.

Incorrect., Cutting off power at a constant speed when travelling vertically UP, your vehicle will NOT stop dead.

Try throwing a ball straight up. Does it stop as soon as it leaves your hand?
Fire a gun straight up. Does the bullet stop as soon as it leaves the barrel?
It is all the same.

If you cut "off power at a constant speed when travelling vertically UP" the vehicle will decelerate and then when the vertical velocity has dropped to zero will start to "accelerate back to the ground".

After the power has been cut the vehicle still travels vertically for a short time until it's velocity has dropped to zero.

Surely you can test this sort of thing yourself in a car up a fairly uniform slope.
A car does not stop instantly the power is removed, whether you are going uphill or not.