Sea and air pressure

  • 1282 Replies
  • 125194 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21703
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #990 on: November 26, 2020, 12:30:01 PM »
It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.
Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?
There's no contradiction.
Really?
So you think saying it isn't larger, followed by immediately saying it is larger is not a contradiction?


How about you show me where I mentioned it. If you can't then don't waste your time with this nonsense.
How about right in that quote chain.
You literally said that it isn't larger, and then immediately after said it is larger.
You can't get much more of a contradiction than that.

And as clearly explained, that is a massive problem for your model.
Your prohibits it from being larger as the only thing pushing down is the air above so there is no way to increase the force.
But your model requires it in order to match reality.

And that is why I asked such a simple question last time, which of course you have to ignore because either way you answer it, your model is refuted.
So I will ask again:
Consider any layer of air. How does the force of it pushing down on the layer below compare to the force of the layer above pushing down on it? Is the force it pushes down on the layer below equal to, larger than, or less than the force that the layer above pushes down on it?

And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.

Ohooo what say you now?!?!
NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.
Not only is it new information, it is also just another massive problem for your model.

Your model, having the air push everything down, requires the air to push it down from the top.
You can't push it down from the bottom or the sides. Moving it down from the bottom would be pulling, and you say that isn't real. And pushing from the sides would push it in, not down, and again require pulling.
But as we have seen, pushing things down from the top creates massive problems.
So while your model requires the air to push down from the top, reality shows it can't.

Yet again, it isn't us not grasping your model.
It is your model repeatedly failing to match reality and you repeatedly being unable to explain any of it.

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #991 on: November 26, 2020, 02:28:30 PM »
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

It seems that so far you have been unable to explain your concepts so that the readers here can understand them clearly and fully.  From what you have provided here, everyone who looks at your words seems to think that the logic of your model is inconsistent and circular.   

You say this is not the case, so therefore, you have failed to convey the information to others.  Blaming them for not understanding is in poor form if your arguments are inscrutable.

You shouldn't blame others for your failings.  Instead, try harder and learn from your failures instead of just repeating them.

Are you sure the problem isn’t that Scepti’s ideas are a load of nonsense that demonstrably don’t match what we see in the real world?


They certainly come across as a load of nonsense - and if that is how they are perceived they can’t do anything other than fail to mesh with reality.

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #992 on: November 26, 2020, 02:55:21 PM »
Holy crap
How is this not new?
It was always desxribed that air stack pushed things down.

How is it now not?
More description needed

This is Amazing

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #993 on: November 26, 2020, 09:56:06 PM »
And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.


Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

It seems that so far you have been unable to explain your concepts so that the readers here can understand them clearly and fully.  From what you have provided here, everyone who looks at your words seems to think that the logic of your model is inconsistent and circular.   

You say this is not the case, so therefore, you have failed to convey the information to others.  Blaming them for not understanding is in poor form if your arguments are inscrutable.

You shouldn't blame others for your failings.  Instead, try harder and learn from your failures instead of just repeating them.
How about you people try harder at learning them. It's not hard.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #994 on: November 26, 2020, 09:58:13 PM »
Probably because he refuses to draw pictures (workable diagrams) or use common definitions of commo n words.


But!
This is amazing.
New development (finally) after yrs of asking the same thing over and over.
What does this mean?

Can we get a picture of something being pushed down by a vertical srack of sponges without it being pushed down?
Push down can only happen by pushing up.
Have a real goold think about that.
Here's a few clues, like I've been saying all along.

Leverage.
Another:
Resistance.
Another:
Foundation.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #995 on: November 26, 2020, 10:00:44 PM »
And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.


Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

Isn't everything a "push" and there is no "pull". And don't you have to have a "push" down to well, you know, have a downward force...even if you don't know where the downward force comes from at the top of the stack?
Yes, everything is a push. Push and resistance to push....always. No pull because there's no such thing as pull, except for the way we try to explain opposite reactions to actions....but....there really is no such thing as, pull, in the physical sense.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #996 on: November 26, 2020, 10:02:41 PM »
It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.
Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?
There's no contradiction.
Really?
So you think saying it isn't larger, followed by immediately saying it is larger is not a contradiction?


How about you show me where I mentioned it. If you can't then don't waste your time with this nonsense.
How about right in that quote chain.
You literally said that it isn't larger, and then immediately after said it is larger.
You can't get much more of a contradiction than that.

Show me where I said the force is larger above than below in terms of atmospheric stacking.

Show me in bold, Mr twister.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #997 on: November 26, 2020, 10:04:02 PM »
Holy crap
How is this not new?
It was always desxribed that air stack pushed things down.

How is it now not?
More description needed

This is Amazing
Air stacking does push things down, but not without pushing up against each stack as resistance to each other.
How is it that you are right back to square one?

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #998 on: November 27, 2020, 12:35:11 AM »
And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.


Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

It seems that so far you have been unable to explain your concepts so that the readers here can understand them clearly and fully.  From what you have provided here, everyone who looks at your words seems to think that the logic of your model is inconsistent and circular.   

You say this is not the case, so therefore, you have failed to convey the information to others.  Blaming them for not understanding is in poor form if your arguments are inscrutable.

You shouldn't blame others for your failings.  Instead, try harder and learn from your failures instead of just repeating them.
How about you people try harder at learning them. It's not hard.

Reading the words you have written is not hard.  Not at all.  Finding a coherent model from those words is hard.  You use terminology that is not standard and is not defined.  You build circular arguments.  You assume some aspects  of your conceptual model are self evident when they are not.  You ignore critical questions.  You refuse to visualize the physicality of the concepts.

In short, it's a mess, and even those who are reading carefully and consistently can not find the coherent and meaningful pattern you claim is there amongst all the noise. 

This is evidenced as how you talk about it.  You continually complain how no one understands you.  No one has ever caught onto this model to your satisfaction.  You have completely failed to make anyone understand these concepts, which solely exist in your mind.   

If you can not make anyone understand to your satisfaction, the place to look for blame is yourself.  Clarity of expression is a sign of clarity of thought, and you fail the former spectacularly.   Dont ask people to try harder to unpack your mess.  Try harder to not make it a mess.

If that is even possible of course ...

*

JackBlack

  • 21703
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #999 on: November 27, 2020, 12:47:02 AM »
It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.
Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?
There's no contradiction.
Really?
So you think saying it isn't larger, followed by immediately saying it is larger is not a contradiction?


How about you show me where I mentioned it. If you can't then don't waste your time with this nonsense.
How about right in that quote chain.
You literally said that it isn't larger, and then immediately after said it is larger.
You can't get much more of a contradiction than that.
Show me where I said the force is larger above than below in terms of atmospheric stacking.
Show me in bold, Mr twister.
I'm not twisting anything. Yet again you come up with whatever pathetic BS you can to avoid admitting your model doesn't work, and admit you contradicted yourself.

I never said that you said the force is larger above.
I asked how it is larger below.
You then claimed that it isn't larger and that straight after claimed it was.
And because it is so obvious where your contradiction is, you are trying to get out of it by setting up pathetic strawmen for you to defeat.

And again, this is a massive problem for your model, your model prevents it from being larger, but reality demands it is.

So yet again, this same problem is yet to be solved by you and your model:
Consider any 3 layers in sequence, the bottom, the middle and the top.
We know from reality that the bottom layer is at a greater pressure than the middle which is at a greater pressure than the layer above.
This means the downwards force on the bottom layer from the middle layer needs to be larger than the downwards force on the middle layer from the top layer.
But this raises the question of where does this extra force come from?

If it is only the air pushing down, then the top pushes down with some force, and the middle will simply transfer that force and push down on the bottom with the exact same force.
There is no increase of force in your model.

So again, WHAT OTHER THAN THE AIR IS PUSHING DOWN ON EACH LAYER OF AIR TO CAUSE THE FORCE TO INCREASE?

Can you actually address this MASSIVE problem for your model?

You shouldn't blame others for your failings.  Instead, try harder and learn from your failures instead of just repeating them.
How about you people try harder at learning them. It's not hard.
The problem isn't us.
We haven't learnt what you claim and what your model indicates.
We have clearly pointed out the massive problems with it.
But you just ignore these problems.
You are the one who needs to try harder, or to cut out the BS and admit your model doesn't work.

Push down can only happen by pushing up.
Have a real goold think about that.
It makes no sense.
You can't push an object down, by pushing up on it from below.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1000 on: November 27, 2020, 02:15:32 AM »
And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.


Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

Isn't everything a "push" and there is no "pull". And don't you have to have a "push" down to well, you know, have a downward force...even if you don't know where the downward force comes from at the top of the stack?
Yes, everything is a push. Push and resistance to push....always. No pull because there's no such thing as pull, except for the way we try to explain opposite reactions to actions....but....there really is no such thing as, pull, in the physical sense.

So at the top of the stack, where is the "push" coming from that forms a downward force? You have a diagram for that?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1001 on: November 27, 2020, 02:41:16 AM »


Reading the words you have written is not hard.  Not at all.  Finding a coherent model from those words is hard.  You use terminology that is not standard and is not defined.  You build circular arguments.  You assume some aspects  of your conceptual model are self evident when they are not.  You ignore critical questions.  You refuse to visualize the physicality of the concepts.

In short, it's a mess, and even those who are reading carefully and consistently can not find the coherent and meaningful pattern you claim is there amongst all the noise. 

This is evidenced as how you talk about it.  You continually complain how no one understands you.  No one has ever caught onto this model to your satisfaction.  You have completely failed to make anyone understand these concepts, which solely exist in your mind.   

If you can not make anyone understand to your satisfaction, the place to look for blame is yourself.  Clarity of expression is a sign of clarity of thought, and you fail the former spectacularly.   Dont ask people to try harder to unpack your mess.  Try harder to not make it a mess.

If that is even possible of course ...
Put more effort in if you're struggling.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1002 on: November 27, 2020, 02:45:23 AM »


I never said that you said the force is larger above.
I asked how it is larger below.
You then claimed that it isn't larger and that straight after claimed it was.

Stop twisting it, you're only frustrating yourself.

Make up your mind what I supposedly said because you've changed it yet again.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1003 on: November 27, 2020, 02:55:55 AM »
And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.


Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

Isn't everything a "push" and there is no "pull". And don't you have to have a "push" down to well, you know, have a downward force...even if you don't know where the downward force comes from at the top of the stack?
Yes, everything is a push. Push and resistance to push....always. No pull because there's no such thing as pull, except for the way we try to explain opposite reactions to actions....but....there really is no such thing as, pull, in the physical sense.

So at the top of the stack, where is the "push" coming from that forms a downward force? You have a diagram for that?
The push comes from inside from bottom to top. The top doesn't push down to the bottom. Each stack pushes against the next.
How can't you get this?


 

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1004 on: November 27, 2020, 03:11:02 AM »
And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.


Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

Isn't everything a "push" and there is no "pull". And don't you have to have a "push" down to well, you know, have a downward force...even if you don't know where the downward force comes from at the top of the stack?
Yes, everything is a push. Push and resistance to push....always. No pull because there's no such thing as pull, except for the way we try to explain opposite reactions to actions....but....there really is no such thing as, pull, in the physical sense.

So at the top of the stack, where is the "push" coming from that forms a downward force? You have a diagram for that?
The push comes from inside from bottom to top. The top doesn't push down to the bottom. Each stack pushes against the next.
How can't you get this?

Because no matter how much this makes sense to you in your mind, this does not make sense to others here in context to the framework you are trying to convey.




*

JackBlack

  • 21703
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1005 on: November 27, 2020, 04:36:03 AM »
Put more effort in if you're struggling.
The only one who is struggling here is you.
You cannot justify your model due to the massive flaws in it.
But rather than admit that or attempt to you just continually insult people.
Put in some effort and actually address the issues showing your model to be nonsense.

It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.
Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?
There's no contradiction.
Stop twisting it, you're only frustrating yourself.

Make up your mind what I supposedly said because you've changed it yet again.
Again, I'm not the one twisting it.
I have shown beyond any doubt that you are contradicting yourself. Now you are pulling the same standard dishonest BS to try to deflect away from it.
Grow up.

Once more, answer the simple question:
You have a layer of air. It is being pushed down from above, and it is pushing down the layer below.
Is it pushing down the layer below with the same force, a greater force or a lesser force than it is being pushed down by the layer above?

Either way, you have a massive problem.
In order to make it match reality, you need a greater force, but then you need to explain where this extra force comes from.
Without it, your model is DOA.

Now going to stop with the pathetic BS and deal with this issue?

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1006 on: November 27, 2020, 05:15:26 AM »
This is amazing.


Also side note.
Somehow this trhead is linked to the "change your mind" thread in that both are marked "new/ update" but as soon as i read one, the other automatically becomes read too.
Anyone else get that?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1007 on: November 28, 2020, 10:40:47 PM »


Because no matter how much this makes sense to you in your mind, this does not make sense to others here in context to the framework you are trying to convey.
It makes no sense to you and others because you will not allow it to, because to make sense of it would be to kill off your globe and we can't be having that, can we?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1008 on: November 28, 2020, 10:41:56 PM »

The only one who is struggling here is you.

I'm far from struggling. I'm more than happy to explain to people who genuinely want to understand. You do not fit into this category.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1009 on: November 29, 2020, 12:18:34 AM »
And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.


Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

Isn't everything a "push" and there is no "pull". And don't you have to have a "push" down to well, you know, have a downward force...even if you don't know where the downward force comes from at the top of the stack?
Yes, everything is a push. Push and resistance to push....always. No pull because there's no such thing as pull, except for the way we try to explain opposite reactions to actions....but....there really is no such thing as, pull, in the physical sense.

So at the top of the stack, where is the "push" coming from that forms a downward force? You have a diagram for that?
The push comes from inside from bottom to top. The top doesn't push down to the bottom. Each stack pushes against the next.
How can't you get this?

Because that would mean everything is pushing upward, not downward.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1010 on: November 29, 2020, 12:20:32 AM »
And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.


Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!
It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

Isn't everything a "push" and there is no "pull". And don't you have to have a "push" down to well, you know, have a downward force...even if you don't know where the downward force comes from at the top of the stack?
Yes, everything is a push. Push and resistance to push....always. No pull because there's no such thing as pull, except for the way we try to explain opposite reactions to actions....but....there really is no such thing as, pull, in the physical sense.

So at the top of the stack, where is the "push" coming from that forms a downward force? You have a diagram for that?
The push comes from inside from bottom to top. The top doesn't push down to the bottom. Each stack pushes against the next.
How can't you get this?

Because that would mean everything is pushing upward, not downward.
It's actually both.

*

JackBlack

  • 21703
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1011 on: November 29, 2020, 12:57:19 AM »
I'm far from struggling. I'm more than happy to explain to people who genuinely want to understand.
Really?
Because I am yet to see you explain anything.
You only seem to be willing to preach to those who are willing to accept whatever BS you say without thinking or quesitoning.

You do not fit into this category.
And more pathetic insults.
I have shown that I do fit into the category that you have actually described, those with a genuine interest in understanding.
I have done this by actually listening to your model, and asking for how it explains various things, and keeping those things in mind with later things which causes a conflict because you contradict yourself.

If you have a model which works to describe reality, I want to know and understand it.
But that doesn't mean I will just accept whatever nonsense you say.

The only reason you say I don't want to understand is because you cannot address the issues raised because your model simply doesn't work.

The category I don't fit into is the one you actually want, that described above, the fools who will just accept whatever you say.
I don't fit into that category because I actually care about the truth, unlike you.

So if you really are more than happy to explain and you aren't struggling at all, then answer one of the most basic issues of your model:
What makes air stack such that the pressure is greater the lower down in the stack you are?

Remember, it can't be the air. That is what you are trying to explain; and if we ignore what happens at the top, then if it was just each layer of air pushing down on the next, the pressure would be constant.
You need a force acting on each layer of air to cause the pressure to increase.

What is the source of this force?

Can you actually explain it? Or can you just insult and dismiss those who question your model?

It makes no sense to you and others because you will not allow it to
No, it makes absolutely no sense because it directly contradicts itself as repeatedly explained.
You have no justification for why your air stacks.
This issue has been clearly shown to you repeatedly, and you just ignore it.
And that is just one of many issues.

We have raised numerous issues where your model contradicts reality or itself, and you have no answer and instead just ignore the issue entirely or find some way to deflect, or just insult us.

Once more, the issue is not us, it is you and your model.

because to make sense of it would be to kill off your globe and we can't be having that, can we?
See, this is also pure BS, and that has also been explained to you.

There is nothing in your nonsense which prevents it from working just as well on a globe.
You would have the RE as the foundation, with the air stacking by pure magic, just in spherical shells instead of flat layers, all the way out to the dome, which would be another spherical shell.

As you have provided no justification for what magic causes the air to stack, there is nothing stopping working just as well on the globe we live on.

So that clearly is not the reason.
The most likely reason so many people think it is nonsense is because it is nonsense, and you just refuse to admit it.

If it wasn't nonsense, you would have addressed the multitude of issues raised instead of ignoring them entirely or deflecting however you can.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1012 on: November 29, 2020, 04:39:48 AM »
I'm far from struggling. I'm more than happy to explain to people who genuinely want to understand.
Really?
Because I am yet to see you explain anything.

So why are you bothering?

*

JackBlack

  • 21703
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1013 on: November 29, 2020, 12:46:32 PM »
So why are you bothering?
I have explained that to you before.
Unlike you, I care about the truth.
When I see you (or anyone else post pure nonsense), I will object.
That includes REers making nonsense arguments for the FE.

Meanwhile, if you are happy to explain, and aren't struggling, why do you still not explain such a basic part of your model?
Why do you still refuse to address the massive contradiction in your model that shows it is pure nonsense?


Once more, we know there is a pressure gradient. This is directly observed.

We also know that if it is just air pushing each layer down, then the force and pressure remains the same all the way through the stack.
This has been explained repeatedly.
If there is no bulk motion, there is no net force. That means the force pushing down from above needs to be the same as the force pushing up from below.
And as they need an equal and opposite reactionary force, that means the force pushing down from above needs to be the same as the force pushing down to below.
The only way to have the force increase is by having an extra force act on each layer of air, that is a force in addition to the force from the air above.

This means you need something other than the air pushing down on air.
i.e. we KNOW that there is a force which acts on the air to push it down which is not simply the air.

And then the big issue for you is now that you have a force acting on each layer of air to move it down, why can't this force act on other objects as well? i.e. instead of air pushing objects down for no reason at all and with massive contradictions, this force acts on everything and pushes everything down.

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1014 on: November 29, 2020, 02:23:20 PM »


Because no matter how much this makes sense to you in your mind, this does not make sense to others here in context to the framework you are trying to convey.
It makes no sense to you and others because you will not allow it to, because to make sense of it would be to kill off your globe and we can't be having that, can we?

That would be a very strange but I guess viable hypothesis if it was only people who believed the world was round that could not understand you.

But it’s everybody  No one understands your concept as you imagine it. Everyone fails.  No one at all can made a coherent picture from the words you are giving here, regardless of their belief system.

Why is that? 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1015 on: November 29, 2020, 10:48:20 PM »


Because no matter how much this makes sense to you in your mind, this does not make sense to others here in context to the framework you are trying to convey.
It makes no sense to you and others because you will not allow it to, because to make sense of it would be to kill off your globe and we can't be having that, can we?

That would be a very strange but I guess viable hypothesis if it was only people who believed the world was round that could not understand you.

But it’s everybody  No one understands your concept as you imagine it. Everyone fails.  No one at all can made a coherent picture from the words you are giving here, regardless of their belief system.

Why is that?
Some people actually can but, likely, those who do understand it or want to understand it, know there's people on here that will ridicule them for daring to understand it...so they take  a back seat.

Jane started to get it but was set upon by the usual suspects.

Nobody will get it if they refuse to actually try to understand it.
Too much global nonsense hindering people.

*

JackBlack

  • 21703
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1016 on: November 29, 2020, 11:30:55 PM »
Some people actually can
Who?
So far it just seems to be you.
The only person who has been in any way on your side was Jane, and even they didn't say it made sense.
The reason she appeared to be doing so well by your standard was that she was just listening to whatever you said rather than questioning it.
That is because they knew it doesn't match reality and didn't care, they just wanted to know what your model contains.


those who do understand it or want to understand it
Those who do understand it realise it makes no sense.

You just insult anyone who points that out and claim they don't understand and they don't want to understand.

Nobody will get it if they refuse to actually try to understand it.
Too much global nonsense hindering people.
Again, the issue is not us not understanding or us not trying. Nor is it any nonsense from our side (you are yet to show a single problem with the globe and you haven't been able to show how it is nonsense, but the working global model sure does damage the credibility of your nonsense)
We have put in plenty of effort to clearly outline what the issues are, and you just repeatedly ignore them because you have no answer.

How is anyone meant to "understand" your model when you refuse to address the multitude of issues with it?

We have now gone to the most basic issue of your model, the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.

As repeatedly explained, there needs to be some force acting on each layer of air to create this pressure gradient.
Without this extra force, if it was just the air pushing down from above, then there is no reason for any pressure gradient.

This has been made abundantly clear to you, but you still have not addressed it.
Instead you just claim the air magically pushes itself down, and object to discussing how the force increases.
The closest you have come to an explanation is appealing to mass, but that would require a force acting on mass (like gravity).

How do you expect anyone to be able to "understand" your model, when you refuse to address such a basic issue?

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1017 on: November 29, 2020, 11:46:16 PM »


Because no matter how much this makes sense to you in your mind, this does not make sense to others here in context to the framework you are trying to convey.
It makes no sense to you and others because you will not allow it to, because to make sense of it would be to kill off your globe and we can't be having that, can we?

That would be a very strange but I guess viable hypothesis if it was only people who believed the world was round that could not understand you.

But it’s everybody  No one understands your concept as you imagine it. Everyone fails.  No one at all can made a coherent picture from the words you are giving here, regardless of their belief system.

Why is that?
Some people actually can but, likely, those who do understand it or want to understand it, know there's people on here that will ridicule them for daring to understand it...so they take  a back seat.

Jane started to get it but was set upon by the usual suspects.


So one person started to understand it?  Besides some invisible shadow people, that is all you have to demonstrate that your explanations are clear and coherent?

One person, who started.

Is it possible, just possible, that people can not understand what you are trying to say for other reasons than they are blinded by indoctrination? 

If so, what could these reasons be?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1018 on: November 29, 2020, 11:57:46 PM »


Because no matter how much this makes sense to you in your mind, this does not make sense to others here in context to the framework you are trying to convey.
It makes no sense to you and others because you will not allow it to, because to make sense of it would be to kill off your globe and we can't be having that, can we?

That would be a very strange but I guess viable hypothesis if it was only people who believed the world was round that could not understand you.

But it’s everybody  No one understands your concept as you imagine it. Everyone fails.  No one at all can made a coherent picture from the words you are giving here, regardless of their belief system.

Why is that?
Some people actually can but, likely, those who do understand it or want to understand it, know there's people on here that will ridicule them for daring to understand it...so they take  a back seat.

Jane started to get it but was set upon by the usual suspects.


So one person started to understand it?  Besides some invisible shadow people, that is all you have to demonstrate that your explanations are clear and coherent?

One person, who started.

Is it possible, just possible, that people can not understand what you are trying to say for other reasons than they are blinded by indoctrination? 

If so, what could these reasons be?
I'll let you guess on that.

*

JackBlack

  • 21703
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #1019 on: November 30, 2020, 12:18:53 AM »
I'll let you guess on that.
So that's a no.
The only viable reason that you are the only one to "understand" your model is because your model is pure nonsense which cannot explain reality at all.

Again, if you want to prove us wrong, and show that your model can actually work to describe reality and that it isn't the fault of your model (or you), then start addressing the issues.
Because while you continually refuse to address them, NO ONE can "understand" your model.

Again, what causes the pressure gradient?
We know it can't simply be the air pushing down on the air, as that would create a constant pressure through the system.