Denpressure explains everything because denpressure is the reality as far as I'm concerned.
Reality doesn't give a shit what you are concerned.
The simple fact is denspressure is unable to explain reality.
It explains it 100% better than the gunk you follow.
Again, if that was the case you would have answered the questions asked of you and addressed issues raised.
But you didn't.
Instead you need to resort to lying and saying it has been explained.
You have also been completely unable to show any issue with the mainstream explanations.
They bounced out as the flat plate of the lid created a far from smooth surface.
And that is the problem.
This makes your experiment useless.
So, regardless of the bouncing, it matters not, because the issue is in them holding the centripetal force like we are told happens in a vacuum with space orbits
No, the issue is really if they have inertia. Guess what, your experiment still shows they do.
The spinning lid hit them with their inertia carrying them out of the dish after this collision.
Are orbits in space beads sitting on a spinning disc? No.
As such your experiment does not disprove inertia or centripetal/centrifugal forces or orbits in space.
So, tell me why beads will stick to the sides of a rotating cylinder
Notice how that is the sides of a rotating cylinder, not a spinning plate?
This is why I keep telling people like yourself to try and understand denpressure and to stop diving head first into stuff that takes you away from the basics.
No, this doesn't take us away from the basics, it shows the basics are wrong.
You seem to only want to focus on the basics because as soon as you try and expand your model starts falling apart.
Your trouble is in thinking trapped atmosphere/gases will corrode stuff as opposed to porosity.
Why won't trapped gasses corrode stuff?
This is what you need to grasp and if you grasp this stuff you will understand.....maybe...but with people like you and Jack and such like, I won't hold my breath.
So we need to discard reality and grasp pure nonsense?
Normal rational people to try and understand it.
As I did, which then involved me asking simple questions which you were unable to answer.
Instead of providing an answer you resorted to insulting me.
I have since improved my understanding of it from various other hypothetical situations, and your model continues to fail to match reality.
Us realising it doesn't match reality doesn't mean we don't understand it.
Jane is the closest to even wanting to understand it but even Jane thinks it's crazy, yet she's willing to grasp it as best she can.
She manages this because she doesn't keep reverting to mainstream to play counteraction games. She tries to understand it from my point of view.
No, it is because she doesn't bother asking you questions about comparing it to reality or comparing different questions because she knows it wont work.
She is willing to ignore the problems to understand it.
Meanwhile myself and others do ask these questions or point out these problem.
That doesn't mean we don't understand. It means we realise it doesn't match reality.
Good old basics and natural science is all you need.
Basic and natural science is what the mainstream has.
You are the one with pure magic.
We are living in a very different world. That's the whole point of it.
No, we aren't.
If you have a piece of metal with a corroded surface, you can cut it open and have an uncorroded surface.
If you leave it sitting there that surface corrodes.
We have mercury barometers that work, we can have a column of water roughly 10 m high supported by the atmosphere.
Objects in water weigh less than objects in air.
If you stop forcing something forwards it continues moving.
And so on.
All of this is consistent with mainstream science, yet contradicts your nonsense.
It's not a spinning globe in a vacuum with burning suns and planets that are trillions upon trillion of miles away and you can float forever and ....well.....need I really go on with this sickening, yet funny global garbage?
No, you need to stop just ridiculing it like this.
You need to understand it and present a rational argument against it.
Until you do, no rational person will take you seriously.
Yep, it's a remarkably different world and it works with denpressure and not fictional nonsense such as gravity, etc.
Except you are now describing a purely fictional world, not reality.
Can he explain how painting steel or using other thin film coatings prevents it from contact with the atmosphere and corroding, when he says:-
all materials are porous and absorb atmosphere
Understand friction and trapped matter in my way and you'll get a grasp.
So that's a no.
You have no way to explain it so you need to deflect.
If you farther think about his denpressure ideas, then all gasses under compression would leak through the walls of their containers, if as he says all materials were porous then no gases could be contained in any time of vessel.
Take a look at superfluids and such.
Which still don't leak through the walls of their container.
Instead they produce a film which coats their container.
Your mind is on what you can see in a container holding water without grasping that denser matter will displace less dense and why the Earth atmosphere is stacked.
The issue isn't displacing the matter, the issue is the directionality of it, and why the atmosphere is stacked. You are yet to explain either.
You just need to think.
We do, that is why we don't accept denspressure.
Also, one more thing you should notice, that is spun up slowly, allowing the objects to firmly adhere and be sped up smoothly, rather than simply being bashed out.
Come back when you're not so uptight and even willing to start at the basics, because, trust me, you really don't have a clue what you're arguing against.
And what happens every time someone has tried this?
We start again at the basics, you provide your "explanations".
We then apply these explanations to something slightly more complex, and you just go back into insult mode and lying claiming it is already explained.
If you can only deal with very basic things, your model is garbage.