Denspressure vs Reality

  • 1394 Replies
  • 305479 Views
*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #810 on: November 29, 2017, 09:48:25 AM »
If my velocity increases by 1 every second for an hour. What is my rate of acceleration at any point in that hour? Has the rate of acceleration changed at any point in that hour?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #811 on: November 29, 2017, 10:23:11 AM »

Are you saying that the remaining molecules expand to fill the entire space?  I know I am bringing things you've said in other posts with this, but I'm just trying to be clear on your meaning.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Interesting.  So why does the pressure drop?
Decompression of molecules due to dwindling amount.
Sorry but I don't really understand that sentence or how it explains lower pressure.
No problem.
Can you explain what you mean?

?

Edge_Loop

  • 323
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #812 on: November 29, 2017, 10:31:18 AM »
its clearly pointless trying to debate on the validity of an individual's flights of fantasy.

Scepti wants us to discuss his idea on his terms, from a starting point of having accepted his construct.

He's not open to challenge or debate...

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #813 on: November 29, 2017, 12:57:27 PM »
Quote from: rabinoz
I could ask, "what would the pendulum do if it were in a chamber with an air pressure less than one millionth normal atmospheric pressure?"
Assuming you mean like inside the van then it would do a very similar thing to what you see in the van except the push back would be a hell of a lot less noticeable.
Now how about you answer his actual question?


It is in a way but I know how you people like to use vacuum and near vacuum so I like to do it from the real perspective of how low pressure is achieved in a chamber and not a lot of people know the reality of it because they choose to go with random molecules just bashing about .
This statement is self contradictory.
The real way is with the molecules bashing about.
Your way is pure fantasy which has not been substantiated by anything at all.

You cannot prove it exists.
Except simple observations prove that it does.
When you observe objects falling, plotting their vertical position over time you find a relation like the one I provided:
d=d0+v0*t-0.5*9.8*t^2.

This works until terminal velocity starts becoming an issue, or until you start getting far enough away from Earth that the force due to gravity is lower.

because the 9.8m/s/s is based on the vacuum nonsense.
No, it is based upon simple observations of reality.

No...a 10 year old with a ball and ramp can not prove what I've just argued.
I know. They will prove reality, not your nonsense.

I'm interested in finding the truth of lies and misinformation.
STOP LYING!!!
If that was the case you would rationally respond to what we say instead of repeatedly ignoring it or dismissing it.
You have shown you have no interest in the truth and instead just want to reject mainstream science, whatever it takes.

I understand that people like you will gate keep it all whether it's deliberate or whether it by simple indoctrinated naivety and gullibility that we all suffer
Or perhaps it is the far simpler explanation? That it is actually true and we are supporting it because it is true and what all the evidence indicates?

dealing with those who write the fictional stories and pass them out with a big red FACT stamped on them.
You mean people like you?

I do not live in your fantasy world.
No, you seem to like living in your own little fantasy world.

It makes a hell of a difference because denpressure ensures that the difference can never allow acceleration to ever become a constant.
Well thanks for admitting denspressure can't match reality.

Magicians magic is easily observable and look to be what people think it is, which is magic.
No it doesn't.

The problem is that most would rather accept it as that than look a bit closer to try and figure out if there is some discrepancy in that magic.
You mean like you do with your nonsense?
We have looked closer, at both mainstream science and your nonsense.
There is no significant discrepancy in mainstream science.
Meanwhile, your nonsense has so many discrepancies (ether internally or with reality) it isn't funny.
We point these out and you just ignore them or dismiss them or come up with some BS excuse which doesn't work at all.

I will then try my best to use the simplest form of explanation for what I believe is the truth or closer to the truth than anything the globalist magicians tell us.
Except you are yet to come up with any explanations that work other than as purely qualitative explanations which only work in isolation, either because they contradict other explanations or would indicate results which don't match reality when comparing systems.

Decompression of molecules due to dwindling amount.
Sorry but I don't really understand that sentence or how it explains lower pressure.
No problem.
No problem for us, big problem for you.
I have explained how increasing the size of the molecules would increase pressure.
The best you could hope for is that an increase in pressure due to the molecules expanding would be offset by the reduced number of particles and you get a constant pressure.

The other problem is that you have no basis for your magic expanding molecules.

Decompression of molecules leading to a more expanded state by evacuation of some which severely hinders the travel of vibrations from the source to the hammer in our ear to vibrate the drum.
You seem to like saying a bunch of words without actually explaining anything.
Sure, your magic molecules have expanded, but why would that hinder the travel of vibrations?

*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #814 on: November 29, 2017, 05:59:57 PM »

9.8 m/s^2!  It is a constant acceleration and so easily observable that even you can’t deny it exists.
You cannot prove it exists.
You can make approximate guesses for it that are exactly that. Estimates that are close enough over a short height and that's it.
You see you can argue this all day long about you being correct or the science world being correct but the reality is there's no way to test the reality of what's being said because the 9.8m/s/s is based on the vacuum nonsense.

“Vacuum nonsense”?  What the hell are you talking about?  You don’t need a vacuum to find that acceleration.  Know what you’re talking about before you post crap like this.  The fact that you think you need a vacuum to figure this out then that really explains a lot.

A ten year old with a ball and a ramp can prove it.  You can predict how fast the ball will be moving at any point on the ramp.  If that ramp keeps going and turns upward, you can predict how far up the other side it will go.  You can use 9.8 m/s^2 constant acceleration to predict all of that.  You can even do it the other way around and use the ball and ramp to find 9.8 m/s^2.
No...a 10 year old with a ball and ramp can not prove what I've just argued.
Seriously, you cannot be this clueless.  This is a basic lab experiment done by middle school kids and 9.8 m/s^2 is easily determined.  It’s a fact and because you’re so biased that you refuse to accept it isn’t going to change that.

I had at least some respect for you for sticking to your guns and explaining your theory.  You claim to be open minded; one the most open minded here.  You claim to use observation and logic to describe how the world around you works.  Then you deny a constant acceleration that is so easily observable even exists.  At best it makes you look like a hypocrite.  At worst it makes you a common troll.
I'm not interested in gaining your respect. I'm not interested in whether you think I'm correct or a nutter or a troll.
I'm interested in finding the truth of lies and misinformation.
I understand that people like you will gate keep it all whether it's deliberate or whether it by simple indoctrinated naivety and gullibility that we all suffer and will no doubt continue to do so in all aspect of all things when dealing with those who write the fictional stories and pass them out with a big red FACT stamped on them.
There it is.  Your typical ad hominem reply.  You’re so not interested in the truth.  You’re only interested dispelling the globe and desperately trying find a way to support denpressure that you’ll change the basic observations of reality to suit your narrow view of how it should work.

It is an undeniable fact that there is a constant acceleration in our world of 9.8 m/s^2.
In your world there maybe that undeniable fact.

Guess what?


I do not live in your fantasy world.
You live in your own delusional world where you deny the existence of reality.

Whether it’s caused by gravity, denpressure, or fuckin’ midi-chlorians makes absolutely no difference.
It makes a hell of a difference because denpressure ensures that the difference can never allow acceleration to ever become a constant.
Except you’re ignoring the fact that the acceleration of a constant value and if your little theory says otherwise you need to fix it.

It exists, is easily observable, and proves constant acceleration is not only possible but easily achieved.
Magicians magic is easily observable and look to be what people think it is, which is magic.
The problem is that most would rather accept it as that than look a bit closer to try and figure out if there is some discrepancy in that magic.
The logical people will always search for the sleight of hand or the gift of the gab that takes the audience away from what's really going on.
It's a lot like the abuse of natural science that we are all subjected to to be replaced by that magic trick.

If you’re going to make your theory viable, you’re going to have to stop ignoring these basic observations you claim to use as a basis for that theory.

Mike
I'll look at natural science and I'll try and make natural observations to it wherever I can.
I will then try my best to use the simplest form of explanation for what I believe is the truth or closer to the truth than anything the globalist magicians tell us.
There’s a whole lot of hand waving and you’re saying absolutely nothing.  This isn’t just something people read in a book and hear in class.  It is very easy to verify and quantify.  Just because it’s beyond your ability to comprehend doesn’t change the fact it is a constant value that eighth graders test in science class.  Your comment about it being based on a vacuum illustrates your ignorance of how the real world works.  I would have thought you would have tested this out before making claims but it’s apparent you simply making the world fit a theory and not the other way around.

Mike
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #815 on: November 29, 2017, 06:18:21 PM »
Simple answer to the OP, "Denspressure vs Reality".
          Denspressure is what is in Sceppy's head that generates all this fantasy about motion and gravitation and
          Reality is all the observations and measurements made that confirm
                                                                    Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation.
It's so simple.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 08:05:24 PM by rabinoz »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #816 on: November 29, 2017, 11:20:40 PM »
If my velocity increases by 1 every second for an hour. What is my rate of acceleration at any point in that hour? Has the rate of acceleration changed at any point in that hour?
It's as simple as this and trust me I'm never going to back down on this.
Acceleration is one simple thing. If you accelerate then you change mph, whether that's 1 mph to 2 mph to 3 mph at a slower acceleration or a faster acceleration. It's all acceleration as long as there's change.

You can't have constant acceleration because the two words are not needed.
Constant mph is 1mp and that's it. Or 10 mph and that's it. And so on.


You cannot have a constant acceleration.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #817 on: November 29, 2017, 11:21:49 PM »

Are you saying that the remaining molecules expand to fill the entire space?  I know I am bringing things you've said in other posts with this, but I'm just trying to be clear on your meaning.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Interesting.  So why does the pressure drop?
Decompression of molecules due to dwindling amount.
Sorry but I don't really understand that sentence or how it explains lower pressure.
No problem.
Can you explain what you mean?
I'd like to but I don't think you're interested or taking any notice of what I've been saying for long enough.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #818 on: November 29, 2017, 11:30:22 PM »
Simple answer to the OP, "Denspressure vs Reality".
          Denspressure is what is in Sceppy's head that generates all this fantasy about motion and gravitation and
          Reality is all the observations and measurements made that confirm
                                                                    Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation.
It's so simple.
That's very simple to say, I'll grant you that.
The issue and the stark reality of what you're saying is entirely different to what the genuine truth is.

You can't even explain yours and it's almost laughable.

"so, ermmmm, what is gravity?"

" Well it's ermmm....well it's just this force but it's not actually a force, kind of thing."

"Ohhh right, so what you're saying is, it's a sort of magic that nobody knows about but they know it's real....a bit like a god?"


"No, no...gravity is mass attracted to mass and there's a man called Cavendish who proved it. He ermmmmm, he ......well he put a couple of lead weights on a balanced spindle  and some on the deck and guess what? they masses only attracted each other.......gravity you see. Oh and also Newton had a nice big red apple smash on his head from a tree, so of that's not gravity then you're a stark raving lunatic flat Earther who needs to be locked up and fed on stale bread and pond water."


Something like that.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 11:42:37 PM by sceptimatic »

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #819 on: November 29, 2017, 11:32:31 PM »
It's as simple as this and trust me I'm never going to back down on this.
So you admit that even if you are completely wrong (which have been shown to be) you will continue to lie.

You can't have constant acceleration because the two words are not needed.
Something being not needed doesn't mean you can't have it.

Do you have any rational argument at all to support your lie?

You cannot have a constant acceleration.
Yes you can. This has been shown without any doubt. Until you can provide a rational argument supporting your lie, every time you say this you are lying.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 11:44:35 PM by JackBlack »

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #820 on: November 29, 2017, 11:40:38 PM »
Something like that.
No nothing like that.

The simplest (i.e. easiest to understand) explanation of gravity is a force akin to the electrostatic/electromagnetic force.
A mass (akin to an electric charge) generates a gravitational field.
This gravitational field attracts every other object with mass.
This force is proportional to the product of the masses (akin to the product of charges in the electrostatic force) and inversely proportional to the distance squared (identical to the electrostatic force).

This relation was shown by cavendish using a torsion pendulum. This was placed such that the 2 small balls at the end of the pendulum were near 2 much larger balls.
Rather than move as just the torsion pendulum would, it moved with an additional force (real or apparent) attracting the small balls to the large balls.

It is backed up by gravitational mapping which can detect anomalies below the surface of Earth which have later been confirmed to be there with a density variation (and thus mass variation).
Additionally, it has been able to predict the path of planets with some issues. One issue was Mercury, but that is explained with relativity.
Another issue is some planets seemed to be affected by another mass. But this led to the prediction of a new planet which was later confirmed.

The more complicated explanation replaces the gravitational field with curvature of space time. This curvature of space time results in objects following curved paths through space and results in time dilation.

Now can you make a rational argument, or just a pathetic strawman?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #821 on: November 29, 2017, 11:43:47 PM »
It's as simple as this and trust me I'm never going to back down on this.
So you admit that even if you are completely wrong (which have been shown to be) you will continue to lie.




You can't have constant acceleration because the two words are not needed.
Something being not needed doesn't mean you can't have it.

Do you have any rational argument at all to support your lie?



You cannot have a constant acceleration.
Yes you can. This has been shown without any doubt. Until you can provide a rational argument supporting your lie, every time you say this you are lying.
Get your person correct in your quotes.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #822 on: November 29, 2017, 11:45:11 PM »
Get your person correct in your quotes.
So no rational arguments, just more pathetic deflection?

Don't worry, I fixed it up so now your lies are properly attributed to you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #823 on: November 30, 2017, 12:19:53 AM »
It's as simple as this and trust me I'm never going to back down on this.
So you admit that even if you are completely wrong (which have been shown to be) you will continue to lie.
If I'm wrong I'll certainly admit it. he issue is none of you people have shown me to be wrong.
Attempted ridicule is not a proof.

Quote from: JackBlack
You can't have constant acceleration because the two words are not needed.
Something being not needed doesn't mean you can't have it.

Do you have any rational argument at all to support your lie?
I'm not lying.
You don't appear to have a rational argument to prove it is a lie.

Quote from: JackBlack
You cannot have a constant acceleration.
Yes you can. This has been shown without any doubt. Until you can provide a rational argument supporting your lie, every time you say this you are lying.
Every time you say I'm lying just tells me that you are reliant on misinformation to back up a claim that you are not qualified to back up.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #824 on: November 30, 2017, 12:55:15 AM »
It's as simple as this and trust me I'm never going to back down on this.
So you admit that even if you are completely wrong (which have been shown to be) you will continue to lie.
If I'm wrong I'll certainly admit it.
Do you notice the massive contradiction there?
(Considering all your other crap, I take it no.)

So which is it, will you never back down, even if shown to be wrong, or will you admit it?
Wait, I already know the answer, you will never back down.

none of you people have shown me to be wrong.
Except we have, repeatedly.

Attempted ridicule is not a proof.
Which is why all your posts aren't proof.

You don't appear to have a rational argument to prove it is a lie.
Except the many I have already provided.

Do you accept that acceleration is a change in velocity per unit time?

just tells me that you are reliant on misinformation to back up a claim that you are not qualified to back up.

Then perhaps you should start paying attention to what I say rather than thinking it means such nonsense?
Perhaps you can go back and address what I have said?

You continually claim you can't have constant acceleration, yet the closest you have come to backing it up is saying it is a measure of change. But that same argument applies to velocity/speed, yet you claim you can have constant velocity and constant speed; refuting yourself.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #825 on: November 30, 2017, 01:09:32 AM »
It's as simple as this and trust me I'm never going to back down on this.
So you admit that even if you are completely wrong (which have been shown to be) you will continue to lie.
If I'm wrong I'll certainly admit it.
Do you notice the massive contradiction there?
(Considering all your other crap, I take it no.)
There's no contradiction there, at all.


So which is it, will you never back down, even if shown to be wrong, or will you admit it?
Wait, I already know the answer, you will never back down.
If I'm shown to be wrong I'll accept I'm wrong.
You will never do it.


none of you people have shown me to be wrong.
Except we have, repeatedly.
Except you haven't, at all.


Attempted ridicule is not a proof.
Which is why all your posts aren't proof.
My posts may not be direct proof but then again none of your posts are, either.

You don't appear to have a rational argument to prove it is a lie.
Except the many I have already provided.

Do you accept that acceleration is a change in velocity per unit time?
Yep, it seems perfectly acceptable.

You accelerate and whilst under acceleration you change velocity/speed/mph and as you do this, man made time advances forwards as you do.

None of it is constant......NONE of it.

just tells me that you are reliant on misinformation to back up a claim that you are not qualified to back up.
Then perhaps you should start paying attention to what I say rather than thinking it means such nonsense?
Perhaps you can go back and address what I have said?
I always pay attention too what everyone says who isn't in my ignore bin and you aren't there so I pay attention.
That doesn't mean I agree with what you say and generally I will only answer to relevant stuff.
However I'm answering a few  extra here that are not really worthy of being answered.....but...well, there you go.


You continually claim you can't have constant acceleration, yet the closest you have come to backing it up is saying it is a measure of change. But that same argument applies to velocity/speed, yet you claim you can have constant velocity and constant speed; refuting yourself.
Realistically speaking if we want to go down the miniscule route, then there isn't anything that's constant.
How do you want to play?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #826 on: November 30, 2017, 01:25:25 AM »
Attempted ridicule is not a proof.
It's about time you took your own advice.

Your only evidence against against
               gravitation and the experiments demonstrating it is attempted ridicule.
And you continually accuse those who will not accept your ideas as
               indoctrinated, in other words attempted ridicule.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #827 on: November 30, 2017, 01:39:37 AM »
There's no contradiction there, at all.
Just like I thought, always refusing to see the contradictions because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

If you admit you were wrong that would entail backing down. So you can't have both.

If I'm shown to be wrong I'll accept I'm wrong.
You will never do it.
Except I have done it, repeatedly, as have others.
Every time it has been done you resort to insults or lying and claiming you already explained it.

My posts may not be direct proof but then again none of your posts are, either.
Your posts aren't indirect proof either.
Meanwhile I have provided proofs against your claims; I have proven them to be false.

Do you accept that acceleration is a change in velocity per unit time?
Yep, it seems perfectly acceptable.
So if you start at 0 m/s and then after 1 s your velocity is 1 m/s, what is the acceleration?

None of it is constant......NONE of it.
Except there is nothing preventing it being constant.

I always pay attention too what everyone says who isn't in my ignore bin and you aren't there so I pay attention.
That doesn't mean I agree with what you say and generally I will only answer to relevant stuff.
Then why have you repeatedly misrepresented what people say?
And is that your excuse? When people clearly show you are wrong, you just deem it not relevant?

Realistically speaking if we want to go down the miniscule route, then there isn't anything that's constant.
How do you want to play?
Yes, technically speaking, nothing is constant (at least for a single object).
But from a practical point of view you can have a constant acceleration or a constant velocity. By that I mean the variations are negligible.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #828 on: November 30, 2017, 01:39:37 AM »
Attempted ridicule is not a proof.
It's about time you took your own advice.

Your only evidence against against
               gravitation and the experiments demonstrating it is attempted ridicule.
And you continually accuse those who will not accept your ideas as
               indoctrinated, in other words attempted ridicule.
I'm not innocent in all of this.
I measure my digs in response.
To be honest, me calling you people indoctrinated is not attempted ridicule, it's a legitimate truth because I am also part of the indoctrination. the only difference is in how much of something of everything it is.


Your gravity demonstrations are not a demonstration of gravity when you do not know what gravity is.
Think about that.

You might as well use gravity as a god and people can become gravity dependent or gravity on the fence or gravity denial.

I choose full denial of it because I do not recognise it as anything, because simple logic tells me that it's a clear and absolute nonsensical so called force that is and isn't a force depending on how it's questioned.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #829 on: November 30, 2017, 01:43:38 AM »
Except I have done it, repeatedly, as have others.

Done what?

Show me what you've done.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #830 on: November 30, 2017, 01:53:00 AM »
To be honest, me calling you people indoctrinated is not attempted ridicule, it's a legitimate truth because I am also part of the indoctrination.
Except you are yet to substantiate that claim at all, and you repeatedly use it to dismiss what people say.

As such, it sure seems like it is deliberate ridicule, and the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

Your gravity demonstrations are not a demonstration of gravity when you do not know what gravity is.
They are a demonstration that masses are attracted to one another.
That is what gravity is by definition.

Not understanding it fully doesn't mean we can't know it is gravity.

These demonstrations (among others) is also enough to clearly show denspressure is wrong.

I choose full denial of it because I do not recognise it as anything, because simple logic tells me that it's a clear and absolute nonsensical so called force that is and isn't a force depending on how it's questioned.
Just like the centrifugal force, which is dependent upon your reference frame.
Is that way you oppose inertia so much, because it deals with this to some extent?
I guess that makes some sense now.

Gravity, ignoring the slight variations, acts the exact same as being in an accelerating container. This would indicate it is merely an apparent force, not a real force.
This is also supported by relativities explanation for gravity.

The issue is that gravity isn't uniform and instead there are variations in gravity as you move away from an object.
This means these apparently inertial reference frames are local (infinitesimally small).
As such, if you view an object being acted upon by gravity from an inertial reference frame, it appears to accelerate, which would indicate it is a real force.

It isn't so much an issue with gravity, it is an issue with our understanding/definitions of real and apparent forces.

It is somewhat akin to light with it behaving like a particle in some cases and a wave in other cases.
But that isn't an issue with our understanding of light, it is an issue with the understanding of what a particle is.
In reality it composed of particles, and like all particles, it has significant wave nature.
In fact, what we perceive as particles may be nothing more than a complex manifestation of this wave nature with waves interacting with each other.

?

Edge_Loop

  • 323
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #831 on: November 30, 2017, 01:54:23 AM »
Why do people assume that common sense and 'logic' are trustworthy?

A persons 'logic' is just a projection of how they believe the world around them 'should' be... It rarely has any relation to objective reality. There are occasional overlaps with reality that are coincidental, but that's about it.

If your main argument is that your position is 'logical' then you've lost already...

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #832 on: November 30, 2017, 01:58:40 AM »
Except I have done it, repeatedly, as have others.

Done what?

Show me what you've done.
Note: for the following it isn't just me that has done it, other people have done it as well, as it is not a comprehensive list.

I have shown that you are wrong.
For example, right from our first encounter, I explained how denspressure would mean evacuating the air from the inside of an object would increase the amount of air it displaces and thus result in a greater weight. Yet observations indicate it weighs less.
I have explained how a fluid barometer (or several) show that denspressure is false, where depending upon the exact interpretation of denspressure, they would all read the same as the weight is the same, or they would all be filled to the top due to the pressure differential.
I have explained how air permeating objects to magically manipulate their volume would result in nothing being air-tight while plenty of things are.
I have explained how identical structures (i.e. the pattern of the atoms) can be identical yet still have different densities, indicating it isn't just air filling the voids like you claim.
I have shown how your explanations for why people feel like they are forced back into their seat are wrong as the same should happen with wind blowing on the car.
I have shown how your claim regarding the slinky disproving gravity is wrong due to the various forces acting on the parts of the slinky.

And recently I have shown why you were wrong regarding constant acceleration vs constant velocity.
i was doing that again, but you seemed to stop answering the questions and instead focus on this.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #833 on: November 30, 2017, 02:00:29 AM »
Why do people assume that common sense and 'logic' are trustworthy?

A persons 'logic' is just a projection of how they believe the world around them 'should' be... It rarely has any relation to objective reality. There are occasional overlaps with reality that are coincidental, but that's about it.

If your main argument is that your position is 'logical' then you've lost already...
Logic itself is trustworthy.
The issue is people not using it correctly.

But yes, if your position is just "it's logical" then you have failed.
A proper argument would explain the logic.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11250
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #834 on: November 30, 2017, 02:23:49 AM »
Scepti....

I don't venture up in the upper fora much anymore and I have been distant for a bit from the site in general. So I did scan through the thread some (new put me on page one)....though did not read everything.

Random question though....what if denspressure was correct for the effect of gravity, but the earth was a sphere...the "dome" was not a dome but a sphere of some material (biological, electromagnetic etc) that still acted as a containment system.

I see no reason these two theories could not exist in harmony. Perhaps the earth is stationary but a sphere. Perhaps gravity is not caused by mass but by denspressure in the enclosed sphere.

I am just musing here...thinking out loud.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Edge_Loop

  • 323
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #835 on: November 30, 2017, 02:48:46 AM »
Why do people assume that common sense and 'logic' are trustworthy?

A persons 'logic' is just a projection of how they believe the world around them 'should' be... It rarely has any relation to objective reality. There are occasional overlaps with reality that are coincidental, but that's about it.

If your main argument is that your position is 'logical' then you've lost already...
Logic itself is trustworthy.
The issue is people not using it correctly.

But yes, if your position is just "it's logical" then you have failed.
A proper argument would explain the logic.

True logic is trustworthy, unfortunately when people use the word logic they are actually talking about 'common sense', which is far from trustworthy as its only based on personal experience.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #836 on: November 30, 2017, 02:57:50 AM »
Not understanding it fully doesn't mean we can't know it is gravity.
It doesn't mean you can know it is gravity, either.


These demonstrations (among others) is also enough to clearly show denspressure is wrong.
It shows nothing of the sort.


Just like the centrifugal force, which is dependent upon your reference frame.
Why does centrifugal force depend upon your reference frame?


Is that way you oppose inertia so much, because it deals with this to some extent?
I guess that makes some sense now.
I oppose inertia because of what it implies over and above what it should imply, which is merely a dense mass overcoming resistance.


Gravity, ignoring the slight variations, acts the exact same as being in an accelerating container. This would indicate it is merely an apparent force, not a real force.
This is also supported by relativities explanation for gravity.
It's either a real force or it isn't. If it isn't, then it's nothing.



The issue is that gravity isn't uniform and instead there are variations in gravity as you move away from an object.
This means these apparently inertial reference frames are local (infinitesimally small).
As such, if you view an object being acted upon by gravity from an inertial reference frame, it appears to accelerate, which would indicate it is a real force.
This is how silly it all is. It goes beyond pathetic.


It isn't so much an issue with gravity, it is an issue with our understanding/definitions of real and apparent forces.
Correct, it isn't an issue with gravity, it's an issue with those who made up the bullcrap trying to explain it all in the pathetic silly way they do to try and make it become real and for people to follow it and believe it has to be real, just because the explanations are complicated  in terms of it's use outside of reality, like so called space and such.
The rest of it can be explained perfectly well with denpressure which is reality.


It is somewhat akin to light with it behaving like a particle in some cases and a wave in other cases.
But that isn't an issue with our understanding of light, it is an issue with the understanding of what a particle is.
In reality it composed of particles, and like all particles, it has significant wave nature.
In fact, what we perceive as particles may be nothing more than a complex manifestation of this wave nature with waves interacting with each other.
Light is another thing that's told with all kinds of clap trap.

This is what people's heads are stuffed with and they adhere to it like limpets because they don't know how to counteract it or are scared to try because they fear ridicule.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #837 on: November 30, 2017, 03:02:02 AM »
Why do people assume that common sense and 'logic' are trustworthy?

A persons 'logic' is just a projection of how they believe the world around them 'should' be... It rarely has any relation to objective reality. There are occasional overlaps with reality that are coincidental, but that's about it.

If your main argument is that your position is 'logical' then you've lost already...
Nobody loses until there's something to lose.
A debate will remain so until someone destroys the other side of it with undisputable facts.

This is clearly not happening from both sides so the debate/arguments go on until someone backs down, which will not be me.

?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #838 on: November 30, 2017, 03:13:43 AM »
It is somewhat akin to light with it behaving like a particle in some cases and a wave in other cases.
But that isn't an issue with our understanding of light, it is an issue with the understanding of what a particle is.
In reality it composed of particles, and like all particles, it has significant wave nature.
In fact, what we perceive as particles may be nothing more than a complex manifestation of this wave nature with waves interacting with each other.
Light is another thing that's told with all kinds of clap trap.
You can easily test that light acts like a particle
http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Quantum%20physics/text/Photoelectric_effect/index.html
Basically, for the beam of light to reduce the charge of the metal, it has to be above a certain frequency or nothing happens.
Light being a particle explains this, as the frequency of light is really the energy of an individual photon. The electrons in an atom have bound energy states, so can't take the energy to break free in pieces, they must take it all in one go, so that's why light above a certain frequency causes the photoelectric effect, as above that frequency one photon now has enough energy to free the electrons.

Since you neither believe electrons exist, or that light is a particle, whats your explanation.

Also what's your explanation for the photoelectric effect only working on metals that are negatively charged?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #839 on: November 30, 2017, 03:33:51 AM »
Except I have done it, repeatedly, as have others.

Done what?

Show me what you've done.
Note: for the following it isn't just me that has done it, other people have done it as well, as it is not a comprehensive list.

I have shown that you are wrong.
For example, right from our first encounter, I explained how denspressure would mean evacuating the air from the inside of an object would increase the amount of air it displaces and thus result in a greater weight. Yet observations indicate it weighs less.
You need to think about a change in volume means a few things.
It changes the compression from one part to another or from outside in or inside out.
Understand this and you'll understand why a sponge and a equal sized block of wood will measure a different weight by absorbing or repelling atmosphere.
Now think about crushing both the sponge and the block of wood and see how far you can shrink their dense mass, because that is when you see what each is just about really displacing in terms of atmospheric pressure, which is why they read different man made weight measurements of their dense mass.




I have explained how a fluid barometer (or several) show that denspressure is false, where depending upon the exact interpretation of denspressure, they would all read the same as the weight is the same, or they would all be filled to the top due to the pressure differential.
I don't even know what you're even trying to say here.
Maybe you can explain this in one post only.



I have explained how air permeating objects to magically manipulate their volume would result in nothing being air-tight while plenty of things are.
Air tight?
Molecules are composed of an almost infinite amount of sizes due to compression and expansion.
You do not expect a football to fit through a chainlink fence but a ping pong ball could be squeezed through and even a tennis ball could squeeze through of enough pressure was applied.
Now think about your structures with a bit more thought.


I have explained how identical structures (i.e. the pattern of the atoms) can be identical yet still have different densities, indicating it isn't just air filling the voids like you claim.
If structures are identical in every way down to the very top and bottom of the molecular make up then there would be no difference.
If they have different densities then they are clearly not identical.
Have a serious think about it or give me an example of you so called proof..


I have shown how your explanations for why people feel like they are forced back into their seat are wrong as the same should happen with wind blowing on the car.
Would you like to explain why people's faces distort under acceleration?
Would that be the seats pushing back into their faces?  :P


I have shown how your claim regarding the slinky disproving gravity is wrong due to the various forces acting on the parts of the slinky.
No you haven't.
You absolutely seriously have not.



And recently I have shown why you were wrong regarding constant acceleration vs constant velocity.
i was doing that again, but you seemed to stop answering the questions and instead focus on this.
Again, you've shown nothing to prove your side against mine other than telling me I'm wrong and you're right because mainstream scientists say you are.