Surface tension explains how oceans can curve doesn't it?

The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...

The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?

Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...

Yes. Try the box of rocks.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 12:53:46 AM

I was told not to use molecules, so how can I answer without explaining them?

No you weren't.
You were told that appealing to molecular links wouldn't help as you still have the same problem, the links themselves need to transfer force from the right to the left.
So it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will have the same problem.

We start with the chain, at the macroscopic level, easily seen, where a force is applied to the right on the right side, and the chain pulls the rest.
But then you want to focus on how the links interact with each link pushing the next, but that just pushes the problem from the chain to the link, where now, in order for the link to remain intact, it needs have the right side of the link pull the left side.
You previously appealed to molecules, wanting to go down to the nanoscale, with each molecular link pushing the next in the chain. But you have just pushed the problem from the macroscopic link to the molecular link, where the right side of the molecule needs to pull the left side, or the molecule falls apart (and it doesn't apply for a chain made of metal rather than molecules, and where there is nothing event remotely resembling a molecular link holding it together).

It doesn't matter what level you want to look at it, you will always need a pull, or it falls apart.

All links push. There is no pull at all.

Pay particular attention to what's happening and you'll understand.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 12:49:21 AM

The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...

I think that's a good idea as you have zero chance of understanding.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 12:49:21 AM

The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?

No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 28, 2020, 03:47:12 AM

Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...

Yes. Try the box of rocks.

Yes, you try them.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 28, 2020, 07:00:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 12:49:21 AM

The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?

No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.

How does the vertical stack determine horizontal crush/push? 

All links push. There is no pull at all.
Pay particular attention to what's happening and you'll understand.

Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.

The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.

Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:15:58 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 28, 2020, 07:00:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 12:49:21 AM

The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?

No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.

How does the vertical stack determine horizontal crush/push?

By what's pushed into and against it, displacing it.

Just think of water. It's not hard.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:13:12 AM

All links push. There is no pull at all.
Pay particular attention to what's happening and you'll understand.

Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.

The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.

Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.

The link is held together by molecular links. Whatever a material is made up of, it's all compression of molecules into each other.

Quote from: Stash on June 27, 2020, 09:38:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 27, 2020, 03:03:49 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 26, 2020, 11:38:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 26, 2020, 10:27:06 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 26, 2020, 09:00:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 26, 2020, 07:08:02 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 26, 2020, 04:40:13 AM

Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.



What air is he pushing off of?

What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?

Why don't you draw that out with your fan blades, showing the direct the fan blades direct the air.  Then think about it.

I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.

Yes it is clear, so why don't you explain what putting fan blades would do.

The wheel is acting just like a fan blade. The only difference is in the way it is pushing against the atmosphere and the way the atmosphere pushes back.

There's no "fan blade" effect here:



If there was a "fan blade" effect, the wheel in its vertical position would fly off horizontally. What's keeping the wheel up in the vertical position?

The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

No, your explanation is wrong. "...expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction..." does not work. The same experiment can be done with a closed wheel/disc. No spokes to 'agitate' anything and you get the same result. You need a better explanation. Yours fails to meet observable reality.

No, your explanation is wrong. "...expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction..." does not work. The same experiment can be done with a closed wheel/disc. No spokes to 'agitate' anything and you get the same result. You need a better explanation. Yours fails to meet observable reality.

The closed wheel disc is the same thing, except it's more dense agitation causing more friction.
It's still cutting through the atmosphere on the rim and still agitating the atmosphere over its entire area and dense displacement of it.


Let's see if I can make this a bit clearer.

Think of a kids' spinning top.
You push the top a few times to get a rotation. The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?

It's own mass is agitating the atmosphere all around it, above it and below it.
This agitation is creating expansion of air on its surface  consistently and this expansion of air is pushing against the atmosphere and creating a pressure push.
The atmosphere reacts by squeezing back which creates an all round balance to the spinning top.

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.


It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

Quote from: Stash on June 28, 2020, 10:22:45 PM

No, your explanation is wrong. "...expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction..." does not work. The same experiment can be done with a closed wheel/disc. No spokes to 'agitate' anything and you get the same result. You need a better explanation. Yours fails to meet observable reality.

The closed wheel disc is the same thing, except it's more dense agitation causing more friction.
It's still cutting through the atmosphere on the rim and still agitating the atmosphere over its entire area and dense displacement of it.


Let's see if I can make this a bit clearer.

Think of a kids' spinning top.
You push the top a few times to get a rotation. The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?

It's own mass is agitating the atmosphere all around it, above it and below it.
This agitation is creating expansion of air on its surface  consistently and this expansion of air is pushing against the atmosphere and creating a pressure push.
The atmosphere reacts by squeezing back which creates an all round balance to the spinning top.

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

Then a spinning top wouldn't stay balanced in a vacuum. But they do. In fact, things spin longer in a vacuum than when not in a vacuum. Your explanation, again, is not supported by observable reality.

Then a spinning top wouldn't stay balanced in a vacuum. But they do. In fact, things spin longer in a vacuum than when not in a vacuum. Your explanation, again, is not supported by observable reality.

That's because the spinning top is not in any vacuum. It's in lower pressure and it's still displacing that lower pressure by it's own dense mass.
It means there's less resistance to its mass which means it holds the initial force of spin for much longer in the very same environment which I explained earlier, only with less pressure.

Quote from: Stash on June 28, 2020, 10:58:52 PM

Then a spinning top wouldn't stay balanced in a vacuum. But they do. In fact, things spin longer in a vacuum than when not in a vacuum. Your explanation, again, is not supported by observable reality.

That's because the spinning top is not in any vacuum. It's in lower pressure and it's still displacing that lower pressure by it's own dense mass.

It means there's less resistance to its mass which means it holds the initial force of spin for much longer in the very same environment which I explained earlier, only with less pressure.

It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.

And no, you wrote:

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment. You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.

So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?

Quote from: JackBlack on June 28, 2020, 02:04:44 PM

Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.

The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.

Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.

The link is held together by molecular links. Whatever a material is made up of, it's all compression of molecules into each other.

And as already pointed out, that just pushes the problem down to the molecular level.
It doesn't answer anything.
How do these molecular links hold themselves together?
How does the right side of an individual link transfer the force to the left side to make the left side move with the right side, rather than just falling apart and having the left side remain where it is while the right side is moved?

The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?

Conservation of angular momentum.
How does your nonsense explain the intermediate axis theorem or the results consistent with it?

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

Really?
So far all you have provided are magic forces.

It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.

And no, you wrote:

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:47:07 PM

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment.
 You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.

There's always a stacking system whether the pressure is super high or super low.
You can stack gold and you can stack steel or wood or polystyrene. It's still a stacking system just like water or atmosphere....etc.
All you're doing is creating a pressure system in all cases that results from that stack, ranging from heavy to light pressure or super compressed to super expanded.

So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?

The stack matters. Nothing works without a stacking system.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:08:04 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 28, 2020, 02:04:44 PM

Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.

The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.

Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.

The link is held together by molecular links. Whatever a material is made up of, it's all compression of molecules into each other.

And as already pointed out, that just pushes the problem down to the molecular level.
It doesn't answer anything.
How do these molecular links hold themselves together?
How does the right side of an individual link transfer the force to the left side to make the left side move with the right side, rather than just falling apart and having the left side remain where it is while the right side is moved?

Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.
I explain it by saying it's made up of linked molecules. How would you explain it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:47:07 PM

The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?

Conservation of angular momentum.
How does your nonsense explain the intermediate axis theorem or the results consistent with it?

Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:47:07 PM

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

Really?
So far all you have provided are magic forces.

You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 28, 2020, 12:00:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:15:58 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on June 28, 2020, 07:00:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 12:49:21 AM

The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.


Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to  that friction.

Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.

If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.

So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?

No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.

How does the vertical stack determine horizontal crush/push?

By what's pushed into and against it, displacing it.

Just think of water. It's not hard.

So, the vertical stack applies forces horizontally?

Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.

Again, you are ignoring the issue.
I don't really care if you want to focus on the molecular level or the macroscopic level.
What I care about is explaining how the individual itself is held together, whether that is a macroscopic link, or a molecular link.
What I want to know is how the right side of that link transfers the force to the left side, without pulling.
That is the problem you continually refuse to address.

As for how I explain it, I use a pulling force, which makes it trivial, regardless of what level of detail you go into.
The atoms on the right pull the atoms on left.
The atoms on the right apply a force to the atoms on the left which results in the atoms on the left moving right. That is a pulling force, exactly what your claims disallow.

Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.

And why doesn't that occur with the major or minor axis?

You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.

No, I mean your magical air that seems to do everything with no actual explanation at all.
You haven't explained your forces. Instead you repeatedly deflect.

Quote from: Stash on June 28, 2020, 11:58:40 PM

It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.

And no, you wrote:

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:47:07 PM

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment.
 You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.

There's always a stacking system whether the pressure is super high or super low.
You can stack gold and you can stack steel or wood or polystyrene. It's still a stacking system just like water or atmosphere....etc.
All you're doing is creating a pressure system in all cases that results from that stack, ranging from heavy to light pressure or super compressed to super expanded.

Quote from: Stash

So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?

The stack matters. Nothing works without a stacking system.

Even at a 95% vacuum? Then it would seem the stacks' ability to press down, hold up, or whatever, a dense object is independent of the level of pressure.

So, the vertical stack applies forces horizontally?

There is always a natural resistant force between matter/molecules, up, down or all around.
However the main compression back from this, only starts when a dense object is placed/pushed into it all with the major force acting at that point, like you prodding your finger into a sponge in terms of compressive force but also having that sponge envelope your entire finger as your finger compresses, it.

However, if you were to think of it as pushing your body up into a dome full of sponge, you can see in that sponge what your body is compressing. What you are displacing of that sponge by your body shape within it.
You'll also notice (if you think of it) that although the sponge is pushed away from you all around, it is compressed over a large area even though that compression appears to be dissipated throughout the sponge where you can clearly see (imagine) the sponge appears not to be changed in original structure farther afield but you can clearly see the compression directly around you and the lesser compression over a small area until everything appears normal.

So, because your dense mass has displaced that, you need a resistant foundation to actually stop that sponge from compressing you down, bearing in mind that you have compressed the sponge up above your entire body length as well and you still have a lot of that sponge stack above you as the resistance to your push, which is also pushing you down in an action/reaction sequence.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2020, 06:13:56 AM

Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.

Again, you are ignoring the issue.
I don't really care if you want to focus on the molecular level or the macroscopic level.
What I care about is explaining how the individual itself is held together, whether that is a macroscopic link, or a molecular link.
What I want to know is how the right side of that link transfers the force to the left side, without pulling.
That is the problem you continually refuse to address.

As for how I explain it, I use a pulling force, which makes it trivial, regardless of what level of detail you go into.
The atoms on the right pull the atoms on left.
The atoms on the right apply a force to the atoms on the left which results in the atoms on the left moving right. That is a pulling force, exactly what your claims disallow.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2020, 06:13:56 AM

Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.

And why doesn't that occur with the major or minor axis?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2020, 06:13:56 AM

You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.

No, I mean your magical air that seems to do everything with no actual explanation at all.
You haven't explained your forces. Instead you repeatedly deflect.

I've explained. Now have a real think.
How can there be a pull?
How in the hell can there be a pulling force in reality?

Everything that happens requires compressive force, meaning it absolutely requires a push when you actually look at it much deeper.

Of course we all go by the word "pull" because we see a to and a fro which we simply accept as a push and pull...but let's look at some simple stuff.

Take a spring.
You compress that spring and to do this you need to push on one end and to have a resistance to that push which is something the spring can compress into or against, which can compress back. All push from here, right?
Now you leave loose of the spring and the spring itself decompresses/uncoils by the same compressive force that starts from the very front of that spring, once released for the original compressive push force...and that is channelled all the way to the back as each cooil is pushed outwards, until the foundation/wall/resistance allowing that is no longer a resistant force but the spring is compressed to the ground by it's own dense mass against atmospheric crush/push and to the floor to lay in it's dense state,s till under a push from atmosphere and also compressive forces in each molecular link holding the spring together.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2020, 06:03:16 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 28, 2020, 11:58:40 PM

It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.

And no, you wrote:

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2020, 10:47:07 PM

The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.

It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.

The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment.
 You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.

There's always a stacking system whether the pressure is super high or super low.
You can stack gold and you can stack steel or wood or polystyrene. It's still a stacking system just like water or atmosphere....etc.
All you're doing is creating a pressure system in all cases that results from that stack, ranging from heavy to light pressure or super compressed to super expanded.

Quote from: Stash

So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?

The stack matters. Nothing works without a stacking system.

Even at a 95% vacuum? Then it would seem the stacks' ability to press down, hold up, or whatever, a dense object is independent of the level of pressure.

Let's use you as an example inside a container.

You walk into that container and you know you've evacuated your own dense mass of atmosphere from it. Right?

Now you are shut in and are enveloped by the pressure inside.
Your feet are pushing into the floor of the container.
This is happening because your body displaces that atmosphere inside and the walls of the container as well as the roof is ensuring that the dense mass of pressure you push away is pushing right back onto you.
Surely you can understand this....right?


Ok, so someone decides to push out atmosphere from that container.
If you could survive it you'd start to feel your body expand because the atmosphere in that container is being allowed to expand out of the opening up to the pump that is pushing the external atmosphere away from trying to equalise that pressure.

You now have less pressure on you but your body compensates by expanding with the rest of the atmospheric molecules inside of that chamber, meaning it is still pushing into that atmosphere inside even though it's less pressure.
the body still displaces it's own mass of that atmosphere only this time the body is losing its own volume of atmosphere already in its make up to try and keep an equilibrium inside the container....but can't without being breached itself by expansion.


Ok so, you say 95% of atmosphere evacuated.
Let's go with it for the sake of it.
Now you can see that your body fills the container, massively against whatever atmosphere is still left in, which the pump by this time would be struggling like hell to hold back that 955 of atmosphere let out to compress into it.

It still leaves that 5% against you which still pushes your dense mass to the floor.
You're not going to float in it because it's just too expanded to allow you to sit in the below stack to resist you.

The realistic thing is (for me) you can never evacuate all of the atmosphere from a container, because the only way atmosphere can leave the container is by it's own expansion which can only be allowed by stopping compressed atmosphere pushing against it, externally, which is why a pump solves that issue.......or, you put something inside the container that is dense enough to evacuate atmosphere, which is you or any object dense enough to overcome external atmospheric push.

Quote from: JackBlack on June 29, 2020, 02:09:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2020, 06:13:56 AM

Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.

Again, you are ignoring the issue.
I don't really care if you want to focus on the molecular level or the macroscopic level.
What I care about is explaining how the individual itself is held together, whether that is a macroscopic link, or a molecular link.
What I want to know is how the right side of that link transfers the force to the left side, without pulling.
That is the problem you continually refuse to address.

As for how I explain it, I use a pulling force, which makes it trivial, regardless of what level of detail you go into.
The atoms on the right pull the atoms on left.
The atoms on the right apply a force to the atoms on the left which results in the atoms on the left moving right. That is a pulling force, exactly what your claims disallow.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2020, 06:13:56 AM

Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.

And why doesn't that occur with the major or minor axis?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2020, 06:13:56 AM

You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.

No, I mean your magical air that seems to do everything with no actual explanation at all.
You haven't explained your forces. Instead you repeatedly deflect.

I've explained. Now have a real think.
How can there be a pull?
How in the hell can there be a pulling force in reality?

Everything that happens requires compressive force, meaning it absolutely requires a push when you actually look at it much deeper.

Of course we all go by the word "pull" because we see a to and a fro which we simply accept as a push and pull...but let's look at some simple stuff.

Take a spring.
You compress that spring and to do this you need to push on one end and to have a resistance to that push which is something the spring can compress into or against, which can compress back. All push from here, right?
Now you leave loose of the spring and the spring itself decompresses/uncoils by the same compressive force that starts from the very front of that spring, once released for the original compressive push force...and that is channelled all the way to the back as each cooil is pushed outwards, until the foundation/wall/resistance allowing that is no longer a resistant force but the spring is compressed to the ground by it's own dense mass against atmospheric crush/push and to the floor to lay in it's dense state,s till under a push from atmosphere and also compressive forces in each molecular link holding the spring together.

Take your spring hold it horizontally, it can be compressed or stretched from it's relaxed position:
1 compress the spring to its max compressed position, then release it. what happens?
2 stretch the spring to it's max length,  then release it. what happens?
  Explain in your words what happens.

Take a spring.
You compress that spring and to do this you need to push on one end and to have a resistance to that push which is something the spring can compress into or against, which can compress back. All push from here, right?
Now you leave loose of the spring and the spring itself decompresses/uncoils by the same compressive force that starts from the very front of that spring, once released for the original compressive push force...and that is channelled all the way to the back as each cooil is pushed outwards, until the foundation/wall/resistance allowing that is no longer a resistant force but the spring is compressed to the ground by it's own dense mass against atmospheric crush/push and to the floor to lay in it's dense state,s till under a push from atmosphere and also compressive forces in each molecular link holding the spring together.

Take that spring.
Push on it with your hand.
Put a hair in between the spring and the push of your hand.
Is that spring pushing on the hair equal to your hand? Or just what the hair "displaces"?

I've explained. Now have a real think.

No you haven't. You have repeatedly dodged and I actually have thought about it.
That is the problem.
Your claim does not match reality.
Without a pull the link CANNOT hold itself together.

Again, if you want to claim it can't be a pull you need to explain how the link holds itself together; how the right side of the link transfers force to the left side to move it to the right.
The only way it can do so is via a pulling force.

Again, appealing to smaller links will not help at all, as they have the same problem. You would need to explain how these smaller links transfer the force across them.

The simple fact is you have no explanation at all for how that force is transferred. All you have done is appeal to smaller links which have the exact same problem.

How can there be a pull?
How in the hell can there be a pulling force in reality?
Everything that happens requires compressive force, meaning it absolutely requires a push when you actually look at it much deeper.

That is circular reasoning.
You are claiming that everything needs to be a push, and only justifying it via a claim that everything needs to be a push.
What is your actual basis for claiming everything must be push?

What you want to do is focus on the fundamental forces which actually hold things together.
For what we are discussing, the primary forces are electrostatic interactions between atoms/molecules.
The reason they remain in a particular distance away from one another is due to a combination of attractive (pulling) and repulsive (pushing) forces.

The simplest way to understand is that the charges (i.e. protons and electrons) generate electric fields. These fields then attract opposite charges, pulling them together, and repel opposite charges, pushing them apart.

If there were only pulling forces, everything would collapse to a single point.
If there were only pushing forces, everything would be a gas.

Take a spring.
You compress that spring

You are aware that you can pull the spring as well?
Take a spring, pull the spring to decompress it, then release it and watch it pull itself back to its original shape.

Meanwhile, try it with something with no tensile strength, like a fine powder. Pull it apart and watch that it doesn't pull itself back together.

That is especially relevant to what you are trying to compare it to.
You don't grab one end of the link and push it towards the other end. You are grabbing one end of the link and PULLING it away from the other.
The link is not compressing during this time, nor was it extra compressed before hand.
Instead it is beings stretched, and the tensile (i.e. pulling) forces inside it try to combat that and pull the link along.

I wonder if Scepti knows there's such a thing as a push pull amplifier. That could drive him (more) bonkers.