Denspressure vs Reality

Quote from: JackBlack on December 09, 2017, 01:44:48 PM

If you can only deal with very basic things, your model is garbage.

The basics are what people will eventually understand that scuppers gravity and the nonsense that goes with it, which includes the entire global Earth nonsense.
The basics is what people like you can't or won't grasp because your mind is book focused and memory adhered to so you can regurgitate the same old useless and pointless crap, to be fair.

Notice how that is yet another pathetic deflection?
Your basics do nothing to gravity.
All they do is provide a false alternative explanation.
Your entire model still works on the globe Earth.
I find it quite funny how you repeatedly refer to gobstoppers, round objects, when discussing layering and all that jazz.

Again, I have grasped the basics. I then applied them to more situations and found they failed to describe reality.

Like I said:
If you can only deal with very basic things, your model is garbage.

It's strange how I've talked to people face to face and also shown them how and why I think what I think and yet they get it.

More lies from you, or was it they were just pretending to avoid hurting your feelings?
Or were they paranoid conspiracy nuts as well?

They can see how the basics stump the magic of mainstream and yet you people simply can't see anything.
That to me tells me a lot about the stuff going on.

Again, we can see, including that it is wrong.
Perhaps that should tell you that your model is crap?

Quote from: Mainframes on December 10, 2017, 01:05:48 AM

And your evidence for peeling gobstopper layers is......?

The same as your evidence for your jumping bean atoms and what not.
I can't prove any of that and it comes down to using as best analogy for basics as I can.
Go back to sleep.

So mountains of evidence?
Why haven't you provided any of this evidence?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 10, 2017, 01:13:34 AM

A hypothetical question.

If I were to read out these words in public:
"Everything is compressed like a gobstopper in all matter from bottom to top and in layers of different amounts depending on where they are under, on and above Earth, to the dome.
Agitation/vibration/friction of all these similar gobstoppers will naturally peels the layers but the pressure will leave the peeled layers trapped between the dense gobstoppers which, along with many many other peeled layers in that gobstopper, depending on pressure and vibration, they all take up all space but are trapped until they become squeezed up into lesser dense gobstoppers where they will end up taking their place after all the peeled layers being forced into each other and around each."

How long would it be before I was strapped down and carted off to the funny farm?

<< Well, let's leave gobstoppers for the moment, there're only for sucker's anyway. >>

If a theory is to be any use in real life it has to be able to predict some answers that we need.
Now you've seen these flat earth videos where balloons are sent up to say 115,000 ft taking a camera,  GPS, radio link etc.

Of course you know that the air pressure up there is very low and that might affect the performance of the electronic gear.
So to test it on the ground you make a low pressure test chamber of 5 cubic foot volume.

Then you get a pump from Amazon described as "F2C 3.5CFM 1/4HP HVAC Air Rotary Vacuum Pump Kit With/ AC Refrigeration Gauge Set R410a", cost about $100.

This pump is rated at 3.5 cu ft/min.
How long will take to reduce the pressure in the 5 cubic foot low pressure test chamber from normal sea level atmospheric to 1/180 th of that pressure. That is about how much the air pressure would be reduced at 115,000 ft.

This seem a very practical calculation that many flat earthers might have done, so how would you do it?

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 09, 2017, 06:53:36 AM

I didn't argue it I asked what was taking the place of air in this molecular expansion and contraction.  The molecules are getting bigger and smaller.  Each individual molecule.  What is taking the place of air in your sponge analogy?.

Everything is compressed like a gobstopper in all matter from bottom to top and in layers of different amounts depending on where they are under, on and above Earth, to the dome.
Agitation/vibration/friction of all these similar gobstoppers will naturally peels the layers but the pressure will leave the peeled layers trapped between the dense gobstoppers which, along with many many other peeled layers in that gobstopper, depending on pressure and vibration, they all take up all space but are trapped until they become squeezed up into lesser dense gobstoppers where they will end up taking their place after all the peeled layers being forced into each other and around each other depending.

Now here's the key.
The outer layers are already expanded and can only become less expanded after peeling.
The inner layers are each a little less expanded that the outer layer each one is under all the way to the centre which is not expanded but super compressed and ready for expansion.

It's the inner compressed matter that becomes the super expanded matter and it is this configuration which can create super friction if enough vibrationary pressure is underway.

Let me give you an example using the sponge as an analogy and not because it's full of air hole.
Imagine a massive sponge ball and you want to compress it so you start wrapping elastic bands over it and each one compresses it more and more as more elastic bands crush it down.
Imagine this as going deeper and deeper underground and a pressure build.

Imagine the sponge ending up being so dense because of all those layers and imagine what would happen if that elastic band wrap could not contain the sponge. Let's say super pressure of vibration/agitation/friction quickly peeled those layers.
Imagine the expansion of that sponge but also imagine the condensing of the elastic holding the sponge, going in the opposite way as in expansion to compression depending on where it is in the ground.


Now just imagine how everything manages to find a pressure stack/sandwich and the almost endless configurations of each expansion and contraction and vibration and frequency of it all under varying pressures from the ground to the ceiling (dome) of Earth.

Or are you still going to say you don't get it?

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

Your basics do nothing to gravity.
All they do is provide a false alternative explanation.

Yep, a real life one rather than the fictional one of gravity.

Again, I have grasped the basics. I then applied them to more situations and found they failed to describe reality.

You've grasped little to nothing. You are almost backward in your thinking. That's what copy and paste does to you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 01:08:17 AM

It's strange how I've talked to people face to face and also shown them how and why I think what I think and yet they get it.

More lies from you, or was it they were just pretending to avoid hurting your feelings?
Or were they paranoid conspiracy nuts as well?

This is the Jackblack I wanted out. Keep this up because this is the real you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 01:09:37 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on December 10, 2017, 01:05:48 AM

And your evidence for peeling gobstopper layers is......?

The same as your evidence for your jumping bean atoms and what not.
I can't prove any of that and it comes down to using as best analogy for basics as I can.
Go back to sleep.

So mountains of evidence?
Why haven't you provided any of this evidence?

If you have mountains of evidence then so do I.

You can't provide any and I can provide some with a lot of mine being circumstantial and also unseen by the human eye which requires a best guess scenario of what could be potential reality against what you stick to, which is not even a best guess scenario...it's adherence to absolute utter garbage that clearly does not fit the physical senses.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 01:22:27 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 10, 2017, 01:13:34 AM

A hypothetical question.

If I were to read out these words in public:
"Everything is compressed like a gobstopper in all matter from bottom to top and in layers of different amounts depending on where they are under, on and above Earth, to the dome.
Agitation/vibration/friction of all these similar gobstoppers will naturally peels the layers but the pressure will leave the peeled layers trapped between the dense gobstoppers which, along with many many other peeled layers in that gobstopper, depending on pressure and vibration, they all take up all space but are trapped until they become squeezed up into lesser dense gobstoppers where they will end up taking their place after all the peeled layers being forced into each other and around each."

How long would it be before I was strapped down and carted off to the funny farm?

<< Well, let's leave gobstoppers for the moment, there're only for sucker's anyway. >>

If a theory is to be any use in real life it has to be able to predict some answers that we need.
Now you've seen these flat earth videos where balloons are sent up to say 115,000 ft taking a camera,  GPS, radio link etc.

Of course you know that the air pressure up there is very low and that might affect the performance of the electronic gear.
So to test it on the ground you make a low pressure test chamber of 5 cubic foot volume.

Then you get a pump from Amazon described as "F2C 3.5CFM 1/4HP HVAC Air Rotary Vacuum Pump Kit With/ AC Refrigeration Gauge Set R410a", cost about $100.

This pump is rated at 3.5 cu ft/min.
How long will take to reduce the pressure in the 5 cubic foot low pressure test chamber from normal sea level atmospheric to 1/180 th of that pressure. That is about how much the air pressure would be reduced at 115,000 ft.

This seem a very practical calculation that many flat earthers might have done, so how would you do it?

What are you after proving?

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 10, 2017, 02:52:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 01:22:27 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 10, 2017, 01:13:34 AM

A hypothetical question.

If I were to read out these words in public:
"Everything is compressed like a gobstopper in all matter from bottom to top and in layers of different amounts depending on where they are under, on and above Earth, to the dome.
Agitation/vibration/friction of all these similar gobstoppers will naturally peels the layers but the pressure will leave the peeled layers trapped between the dense gobstoppers which, along with many many other peeled layers in that gobstopper, depending on pressure and vibration, they all take up all space but are trapped until they become squeezed up into lesser dense gobstoppers where they will end up taking their place after all the peeled layers being forced into each other and around each."

How long would it be before I was strapped down and carted off to the funny farm?

<< Well, let's leave gobstoppers for the moment, there're only for sucker's anyway. >>

If a theory is to be any use in real life it has to be able to predict some answers that we need.
Now you've seen these flat earth videos where balloons are sent up to say 115,000 ft taking a camera,  GPS, radio link etc.

Of course you know that the air pressure up there is very low and that might affect the performance of the electronic gear.
So to test it on the ground you make a low pressure test chamber of 5 cubic foot volume.

Then you get a pump from Amazon described as "F2C 3.5CFM 1/4HP HVAC Air Rotary Vacuum Pump Kit With/ AC Refrigeration Gauge Set R410a", cost about $100.

This pump is rated at 3.5 cu ft/min.
How long will take to reduce the pressure in the 5 cubic foot low pressure test chamber from normal sea level atmospheric to 1/180 th of that pressure. That is about how much the air pressure would be reduced at 115,000 ft.

This seems a very practical calculation that many flat earthers might have done, so how would you do it?

What are you after proving?

I'll tell you after you explain how would you would work out the time to reduce the air pressure to 1/180 of normal pressure.

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

Evidence and science backing kinetic theory:

Brownian motion
Rutherford Gold Leaf experiment
Elements and Isotopes
Hydrogen bonds
Van der waals forces
Compression of gases v liquids/solids
Reaction kinetics
Stoichiometry
Crystallisation
Evaporation
Condensation
Convection
Adiabatic expansion
Viscosity

Off the top of my head.

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

There you go again refusing to answer the question. Are you frightened of admitting the truth about your made up nonesense?

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

You are welcome to read about them in any science history text book that describes how we have reached our current understanding, it’s no secret.
Now remind me where we can read about you ideas?...or is it a secret?

I'll tell you after you explain how would you would work out the time to reduce the air pressure to 1/180 of normal pressure.

I don't care about it, it has no relevance to people understanding denpressure.
You need to know what it is and you don't even know what en evacuation chamber and pump actually does, so you're arguing without any knowledge other than what you've raad up on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:17:47 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

Evidence and science backing kinetic theory:

Brownian motion
Rutherford Gold Leaf experiment
Elements and Isotopes
Hydrogen bonds
Van der waals forces
Compression of gases v liquids/solids
Reaction kinetics
Stoichiometry
Crystallisation
Evaporation
Condensation
Convection
Adiabatic expansion
Viscosity

Off the top of my head.

So just saying stuff is evidence of something?
What is it evidence of?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:17:47 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

There you go again refusing to answer the question. Are you frightened of admitting the truth about your made up nonesense?

Can't you provide any evidence for what you follow?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:17:47 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

You are welcome to read about them in any science history text book that describes how we have reached our current understanding, it’s no secret.
Now remind me where we can read about you ideas?...or is it a secret?

Oh, ok, your science and history text books tell you what exactly?
What are you being told?

Quote from: Mainframes on December 10, 2017, 04:57:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:17:47 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

Evidence and science backing kinetic theory:

Brownian motion
Rutherford Gold Leaf experiment
Elements and Isotopes
Hydrogen bonds
Van der waals forces
Compression of gases v liquids/solids
Reaction kinetics
Stoichiometry
Crystallisation
Evaporation
Condensation
Convection
Adiabatic expansion
Viscosity

Off the top of my head.

So just saying stuff is evidence of something?
What is it evidence of?

Go away and read about these subjects. They all support or interlink with kinetic theory.

Meanwhile denpressure does not have a single piece of supporting evidence.

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 04:59:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:17:47 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

There you go again refusing to answer the question. Are you frightened of admitting the truth about your made up nonesense?

Can't you provide any evidence for what you follow?

Yet more evation, what’s the problem, chicken boy. Too frightened to put your money where your mouth is. What the point asking me for evidence on main stream science it’s all out there, go look, open your eyes. Your computer, the power it uses, go look things up. It appears you’re  just to too scared, again, to answer a straight question.
The problem is denpressure it’s a woolly heap of evidence free cow turds with no more chance of being true than me seeing pink spotted hippos in my front garden.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 10, 2017, 02:46:43 AM

Your basics do nothing to gravity.
All they do is provide a false alternative explanation.

Yep, a real life one rather than the fictional one of gravity.

Nope, a complete nonsense one.
This thread has shown that quite convincingly.
Your explanations contradict each other, showing it does not match reality.

Meanwhile, gravity matches reality just fine. You are yet to show any problems with it.

You've grasped little to nothing. You are almost backward in your thinking. That's what copy and paste does to you.

No, I have grasped plenty. Again, I have been able to explain clearly what your model would predict.
I'm not copying and pasting. I am thinking for myself.

This is the Jackblack I wanted out. Keep this up because this is the real you.

The one that continually calls you out on your BS?

If you have mountains of evidence then so do I.
You can't provide any and I can provide some with a lot of mine being circumstantial and also unseen by the human eye which requires a best guess scenario of what could be potential reality against what you stick to, which is not even a best guess scenario...it's adherence to absolute utter garbage that clearly does not fit the physical senses.

I have already provided examples of this evidence.
You have provided nothing.
Baselessly claiming you have evidence doesn't mean you do.
Baselessly claiming we haven't doesn't mean we haven't.

The most recent example I brought up was the transition between liquid and gas.
This makes perfect sense in a model where molecules are discrete units with interactions between them.
It makes no sense in your ridiculous model where magic air pieces magically expand and contract such that they are always touching.

But of course, rather than deal with this (as you can't) you just dismiss it.

As for not fitting the physical senses, you are yet to show a single thing from mainstream science that doesn't fit the physical senses.

Can't you provide any evidence for what you follow?

Why do you repeatedly ask for evidence when you just ignore it when it is provided?
The simple fact is there is plenty of evidence for mainstream science and none for your delusional garbage.
If you want anyone to think otherwise, then stop attacking mainstream science and start backing up your garbage.
This thread is not "mainstream science vs reality" it is "denspressure vs reality".
So stop deflecting and trying to put the spotlight on mainstream science.
If you want to do that, do it in another thread.
This thread is for you to justify your nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 05:48:49 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on December 10, 2017, 04:57:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:17:47 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 03:27:43 AM

I don’t think you quite get it...when did you observe all this? What supporting evidence have you gathered? If it’s all just guess work then it’s no more than a total waste of time, as any dimwit could make up any old bollocks.
You yourself said about only believing what you can see.

So what did you see and how did you see it?

Tell me about the molecules that you rely on.
Show me your evidence of atmospheric molecules.

Evidence and science backing kinetic theory:

Brownian motion
Rutherford Gold Leaf experiment
Elements and Isotopes
Hydrogen bonds
Van der waals forces
Compression of gases v liquids/solids
Reaction kinetics
Stoichiometry
Crystallisation
Evaporation
Condensation
Convection
Adiabatic expansion
Viscosity

Off the top of my head.

So just saying stuff is evidence of something?
What is it evidence of?

Go away and read about these subjects. They all support or interlink with kinetic theory.

Meanwhile denpressure does not have a single piece of supporting evidence.

It depends on how a person sees denpressure as a theory.
Gravity has no evidence whatsoever but it's used to keep alive a globe in space.
Utter utter utter nonsense of the highest order and yet bullied and battered into the heads of the young for years on end until they can't think rationally from them on about what it is their Earth actually is and what is part of it.

Your nonsense evidence is your reliance on stories to tell you nothing that you understand, but pretend you do.

Yet more evation, what’s the problem, chicken boy. Too frightened to put your money where your mouth is.

 

What the point asking me for evidence on main stream science it’s all out there, go look, open your eyes. Your computer, the power it uses, go look things up. It appears you’re  just to too scared, again, to answer a straight question.
The problem is denpressure it’s a woolly heap of evidence free cow turds with no more chance of being true than me seeing pink spotted hippos in my front garden.

You're struggling like hell to justify anything, aren't you? 

Meanwhile, gravity matches reality just fine. You are yet to show any problems with it.

You don't even know what gravity is so don't tell me it matches reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:12:01 AM

You've grasped little to nothing. You are almost backward in your thinking. That's what copy and paste does to you.

No, I have grasped plenty. Again, I have been able to explain clearly what your model would predict.
I'm not copying and pasting. I am thinking for myself.

You are 99.9% clueless on my theory but you pretend you know about it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:12:01 AM

This is the Jackblack I wanted out. Keep this up because this is the real you.

The one that continually calls you out on your BS?

I'll let you know when you call me out on anything.
You have failed to do so 100% up to now.

The most recent example I brought up was the transition between liquid and gas.
This makes perfect sense in a model where molecules are discrete units with interactions between them.
It makes no sense in your ridiculous model where magic air pieces magically expand and contract such that they are always touching.
But of course, rather than deal with this (as you can't) you just dismiss it.

Denpressure perfectly explains it but your nonsense does not.

As for not fitting the physical senses, you are yet to show a single thing from mainstream science that doesn't fit the physical senses.

It depends how a person wants to look at it all. Someone like you is incapable or just doesn't have the mindset to be anything other than mainstream dependent.

This thread is for you to justify your nonsense.

This thread is for you to show reality in between me showing you what denpressure is, by explanation.
All I see from you, is fantasy.
Change gear.

Gravity has no evidence whatsoever but it's used to keep alive a globe in space.

Totally incorrect nonsense, but what's point of presenting evidence.

Your only argument is, as always, ridicule.

Quote from: Empirical on November 30, 2017, 03:13:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2017, 02:57:50 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 30, 2017, 01:53:00 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?

Light is very simply friction of matter and the frequency of it and the compression of that matter by energy applied.
It's basically ramped up sound or vibrations at the basic end of the scale.

Can you clarify, why does the photoelectric effect only work on negatively charged metals, and what is negative charge.

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 09:11:24 AM

Yet more evation, what’s the problem, chicken boy. Too frightened to put your money where your mouth is.

 

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 09:11:24 AM

What the point asking me for evidence on main stream science it’s all out there, go look, open your eyes. Your computer, the power it uses, go look things up. It appears you’re  just to too scared, again, to answer a straight question.
The problem is denpressure it’s a woolly heap of evidence free cow turds with no more chance of being true than me seeing pink spotted hippos in my front garden.

You're struggling like hell to justify anything, aren't you? 

You are a piece of work, going on about gravity that you clearly know little about, claim there is no evidence to support it, which is not true, then in your next breath tout nonsense like denpressure for which there is indeed no evidence. You have been asked on a number of occasions for some proof for your ideas in relation to your alleged molecular behaviour under denpressure , and each time you fail to deliver. Instead what you would rather do is beat on about gravity as a distraction. Forget gravity and show your proof or admit it’s all just made up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2017, 03:26:44 AM

Gravity has no evidence whatsoever but it's used to keep alive a globe in space.

Totally incorrect nonsense, but what's point of presenting evidence.

Your only argument is, as always, ridicule.

The ridicule comes mainly from the side you're on. I reply in kind as and when I feel the need, which is rare.
So don't be coming that.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 10, 2017, 12:47:25 PM

Meanwhile, gravity matches reality just fine. You are yet to show any problems with it.

You don't even know what gravity is so don't tell me it matches reality.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 10, 2017, 12:47:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:12:01 AM

You've grasped little to nothing. You are almost backward in your thinking. That's what copy and paste does to you.

No, I have grasped plenty. Again, I have been able to explain clearly what your model would predict.
I'm not copying and pasting. I am thinking for myself.

You are 99.9% clueless on my theory but you pretend you know about it.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 10, 2017, 12:47:25 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2017, 04:12:01 AM

This is the Jackblack I wanted out. Keep this up because this is the real you.

The one that continually calls you out on your BS?

I'll let you know when you call me out on anything.
You have failed to do so 100% up to now.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 10, 2017, 12:47:25 PM

The most recent example I brought up was the transition between liquid and gas.
This makes perfect sense in a model where molecules are discrete units with interactions between them.
It makes no sense in your ridiculous model where magic air pieces magically expand and contract such that they are always touching.
But of course, rather than deal with this (as you can't) you just dismiss it.

Denpressure perfectly explains it but your nonsense does not.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 10, 2017, 12:47:25 PM

As for not fitting the physical senses, you are yet to show a single thing from mainstream science that doesn't fit the physical senses.

It depends how a person wants to look at it all. Someone like you is incapable or just doesn't have the mindset to be anything other than mainstream dependent.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 10, 2017, 12:47:25 PM

This thread is for you to justify your nonsense.

This thread is for you to show reality in between me showing you what denpressure is, by explanation.
All I see from you, is fantasy.
Change gear.

Lost touch with reality or what! , must be all that denpressure atmospheric expanding molecules messing with his brain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2017, 03:45:21 AM

Quote from: Empirical on November 30, 2017, 03:13:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2017, 02:57:50 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 30, 2017, 01:53:00 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?

Light is very simply friction of matter and the frequency of it and the compression of that matter by energy applied.
It's basically ramped up sound or vibrations at the basic end of the scale.

Can you clarify, why does the photoelectric effect only work on negatively charged metals, and what is negative charge.

Just super friction of molecules by huge pressure of expansion by mass that creates heat.
It's all heat from friction. That all everything is.
The only variations are frequency and pressure applied, or force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2017, 03:28:12 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 09:11:24 AM

Yet more evation, what’s the problem, chicken boy. Too frightened to put your money where your mouth is.

 

Quote from: Nightsky on December 10, 2017, 09:11:24 AM

What the point asking me for evidence on main stream science it’s all out there, go look, open your eyes. Your computer, the power it uses, go look things up. It appears you’re  just to too scared, again, to answer a straight question.
The problem is denpressure it’s a woolly heap of evidence free cow turds with no more chance of being true than me seeing pink spotted hippos in my front garden.

You're struggling like hell to justify anything, aren't you? 

You are a piece of work, going on about gravity that you clearly know little about, claim there is no evidence to support it, which is not true, then in your next breath tout nonsense like denpressure for which there is indeed no evidence. You have been asked on a number of occasions for some proof for your ideas in relation to your alleged molecular behaviour under denpressure , and each time you fail to deliver. Instead what you would rather do is beat on about gravity as a distraction. Forget gravity and show your proof or admit it’s all just made up.

I see a lot of yap yapping but I see no proof of anything from you or anyone else.
All I see is you trying to argue that I don't provide you with any.

I know nothing about gravity...not little.
Want to know why or can you guess?

I'll give you a clue.
Gravity sits somewhere in between the tooth fairy and Santa claus, with a large helping of Leprechauns thrown in for good measure.

Just super friction of molecules by huge pressure of expansion by mass that creates heat.
It's all heat from friction. That all everything is.
The only variations are frequency and pressure applied, or force.

Some lube might help although in your case, probably not.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2017, 05:32:45 AM

Just super friction of molecules by huge pressure of expansion by mass that creates heat.
It's all heat from friction. That all everything is.
The only variations are frequency and pressure applied, or force.

Some lube might help although in your case, probably not.

It seems to work in your case and that's all you need to be concerned with.

Quote from: Prof. John Frink on December 12, 2017, 06:14:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2017, 05:32:45 AM

Just super friction of molecules by huge pressure of expansion by mass that creates heat.
It's all heat from friction. That all everything is.
The only variations are frequency and pressure applied, or force.

Some lube might help although in your case, probably not.

It seems to work in your case and that's all you need to be concerned with.

A couple of questions that seem to have gotten lost in these threads.
You explained why molecules compress and expand but not what substance it is that is filling them as they do so.
You never told me what angle was actually steep enough for a car moving 100kph to stop suddenly when you shut off the gas.
You never explained why, if a centrifuge doesn't work in a low pressure environment, do they sell vacuum centrifuges.