What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 03:44:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2021, 02:37:52 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2021, 12:53:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2021, 11:56:58 PM

And this is where expansion comes in to contract. See how it works?
All push, it's just a case of getting your head around it.

So you are saying compression is actually expansion and causes a push?

You can't compress unless you expand.

Really?

Really.
How about you try and prove otherwise.

Go purchase a gas canisters.
Look at it.
Then think about:-
how the gas got in there.
How is it kept in.
What happens when you let the gas out

What happens when you let the gas out

Ooh! I know! It goes psssht!

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 08:32:48 AM

What happens when you let the gas out

Ooh! I know! It goes psssht!

You’re not having a good day are you!
That’s the sound you make after a plate of beans.

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 09:15:49 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 08:32:48 AM

What happens when you let the gas out

Ooh! I know! It goes psssht!

You’re not having a good day are you!
That’s the sound you make after a plate of beans.

Experiment. Light both of those noises and see if they have a similar effect.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 09:25:02 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 09:15:49 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 08:32:48 AM

What happens when you let the gas out

Ooh! I know! It goes psssht!

You’re not having a good day are you!
That’s the sound you make after a plate of beans.

Experiment. Light both of those noises and see if they have a similar effect.

Burning methane is burning methane.

Quote from: Stash on July 23, 2021, 04:18:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 23, 2021, 12:06:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2021, 06:57:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2021, 02:39:34 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2021, 11:59:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 21, 2021, 11:08:20 PM

Ok to get to my point is to explain my atmospheric set up.

The magnet is like an evacuation chamber.
Instead of a pump pushing atmosphere away and allowing natural expansion of molecules within the chamber, the magnet is created by Forcing atmosphere back by process of heating to expand molecules from within, leaving a low pressure that is consistently pushed against by the external atmosphere, just like a chamber would.


Let's see if you're getting what I'm saying at this point because we need to clarify as we go.

Now remember, this is from my side so try and grasp it rather than use mainstream ideals to counter anything.

Ok, I'm not sure how to address this, but I'll try. So the magnet is heated which creates a low pressure around it. That low pressure pushes against the normally higher atmospheric pressure around it, then what happens?

As an aside, what is generating this heat that is creating the low pressure around the magnet?

Not quite. It'll take some explaining and I won't be explaining clearly so it make take some time.


To make a magnet you have to push away atmosphere and trap the remaining broken down molecules within the magnet which means the atmosphere is always trying to equalise.

To heat up is to agitate molecules, like any heating method.

Are you with me so far?

Got it. Is there something about a specific type of material that pushes and traps and agitates its own molecules as opposed to other materials that don't. In other words, what makes some materials magnetic and others not?

If I understand, in its agitated state, the magnet is pushing away the atmosphere around it. What happens next after the magnet's molecules are agitated?

It all comes down to what is trapped and potential release. Like a big vortex where you push one end and it pushes back or you push the other and you are pushed in but in ding so you push out as you go, meaning you create a cycle of breaking a vortex and turning it inside out to become the opposite vortex.


This is all down in extreme broken down molecular state which allows atmospheric pressure to consistently try to equalise.

And I'm well aware I may be being obscure but this is where we'll have to work hard at it.

Ok, that's a lot to take in and digest as agnostically as possible.

So skipping over why some materials do this and some don't, how do these released vortices act physically between magnet A and magnet B? Why does orientation cause them to push together and push apart? Diagram? I'll try and pull one together once I understand more about the physicality.

On a smaller molecular scale it's like push and rush of a bicycle pump or even a evacuation chamber.

Basically you are scaling up and down with variations of pressures in terms of molecular breakdown into their more to less packed set up within.
Think of the gobstopper. Now think of lots of them but in stacks where layers are lost as they stack.

Basically it's like one container can hold a pressure of more broken down molecules but cannot release due to more compact molecules which are pushing.

Anything in that path will be pushed and repelled which will create the opposite effect on the opposite side.


I'm still well aware that this will take time. Just keep to the way you're going and lets see where we end up.

The pressure is contained within and released, I think. In magnet A the pressure is released. In magnet B it is contained. So when magnet A releases, it pushes on magnet B causing it to move toward magnet A. I'm not sure I have it right.

Questions:

- What triggers magnet A to release its vortex?
- If A is triggered or constantly releasing its vortex, a couple of things;
    - How does it replenish its vortex to fire again when needed?
    - If it's a constant release, what is constantly feeding it to do so
    - I guess a side question is what is it about A that is different than B? Or are they both releasing their own vortex?
- Lastly, it's still unclear to me how the A vortex only pushes on the far side of B. Why does it not push from some other direction?

If it's my theory then obviously it's made up by myself.

OK then here it is all in one spot for you to explain with your theory:

An attraction and a repulsion at the same time. Explain that with your rubbish theory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 21, 2021, 10:33:22 PM

If it's my theory then obviously it's made up by myself.

OK then here it is all in one spot for you to explain with your theory:

An attraction and a repulsion at the same time. Explain that with your rubbish theory.

That one is actually fairly easy.
The magnet you are moving produces a flow of magic air from the top to the bottom of your image.
This pushes both other magnets down, the top magnet is pushed down into the moving one which the bottom one is pushed away.

The issue comes when you try to make that bottom pole attract something as it clearly must be pushing things away.

Now look what you've gone and done! Scepti's going to believe you.

*Stares into the mirror*
Sceptimatic. Sceptimatic. Sceptimatic!

One does not simply summon Scepti.

Why should anyone have to prove otherwise?
The meaning of the words themselves prove you wrong :-
To expand means to become larger or more extensive.

Nothing can expand without contracting he medium it is in.
It's a chain reaction, always.
There's always a medium.

To contract means to become smaller or less extensive.

To contract is to compress which can only happen if expansion happens into that medium.

So unless you have a different definition for the words themselves then expand does not mean to contract, they are opposites, by definition.
Explain why you believe they need to be equal, or even why a contraction must always include an expansion?

It's not about different words it's about no expansion without contraction and vice versa.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2021, 11:20:13 AM

Of course I'm not explaining anything to a person who does not want to see anything from me as an explanation.

I'm ok with that.

You aren't explaining anything to anyone. 

I show you magnets attracting each other and you "theorize" that attraction does not exist.

The word "attraction" does exist but it has no real meaning when used in this context.
Attraction supposedly means "pulling" something towards it but pulling something is meaningless in reality because everything has to compress or push.
Have a real good think about it.

But your atmospheric push theory can't explain how the magnets know whether to move toward or away from each other.

It's not about them knowing, it's about what's trapped inside against the atmosphere trying to equalise. It's about atmosphere trying to push on the extreme smaller scale in terms of broken down molecules just like how a battery would store hydrogen and what not.
A similar set up.
A positive and a negative reaction to other likewise materials or materials that have the ability to trap broken down matter/molecules or whatever you deem them to be.

Even calling it a theory is being over generous, since it is rubbish that explains nothing. It's made-up rubbish, and my little magnet experiment proves it!

I challenge you to provide any experiment that supports your rubbish theory.

I can't show you, you have to try and figure it out yourself.Try to understand where I'm coming from, or don't.
Call me nuts or cast me out as as idiot, or try and understand it.
Either way I'm ok with whatever you choose, which appears to be the former.

There's always a medium.

Why?
Because you claim that all molecules must be magically glued together?

But of course, this is now just a bunch of crap, running away from the actual issue.

Remember, the issue here is how muscles work. With how reality can work without a pull.

It was pointed out that muscles contract, which means they pull, yet you then claim they push.
So how do muscles work if all there is is pushing?

Attraction supposedly means "pulling" something towards it but pulling something is meaningless in reality because everything has to compress or push.
Have a real good think about it.

Stop telling others to think and start thinking yourself and starting defending your BS.

There is absolutely no basis at all, to claim that everything is push.

All it takes to destroy your claim is this simple diagram:

How does the right side push the left side to the right?

I can't show you, you have to try and figure it out yourself.Try to understand where I'm coming from, or don't.
Call me nuts or cast me out as as idiot, or try and understand it.
Either way I'm ok with whatever you choose, which appears to be the former.

It isn't a matter of what we choose.
It is a matter of what YOU choose.

You can choose to try to actually justify your claim, providing an explanation and addressing the multitude of issues raised.
Or you can choose to continue to spout pure nonsense justified by nothing and repeatedly refuted.

So it is your choose. You can choose to present yourself nuts/an idiot, or you can choose to present yourself as someone who cares about the truth who can justify their position.

Go purchase a gas canisters.
Look at it.
Then think about:-
how the gas got in there.
How is it kept in.
What happens when you let the gas out

The gas got in there because it was compressed into the canister. To compress anything you first have to have expansion. You just have to understand why, which is pretty simple.

The release of the gas is expansion against external compressive force which compresses even more as the expanded gas hits it and then is compressed into equalisation, nearly.

The pressure is contained within and released, I think. In magnet A the pressure is released. In magnet B it is contained. So when magnet A releases, it pushes on magnet B causing it to move toward magnet A. I'm not sure I have it right.

There's never a true release in a magnet unless massive shock or heat is applied to open up the pores of it sufficiently enough to allow equalisation, basically rendering the magnet dead or not a magnet or extremely weak, depending.
With the magnets in a sort of trapped charge (if you like) you have the vortex of consistent atmospheric push into that which applies pressure not unlike the atmosphere trying to equalise a window clamp, or suction cup as people know it, but obviously suction is not a real thing.

So, here's a think to try and visualise.
Imagine having a tapered rolled up piece of card and you allow atmospheric flow into the larger end. That flow is restricted as it moves down to the taper and you gain a more concentrated atmospheric push from the end of that.

Now imagine having another tapered piece of card that you move towards the other, like fitting one into the other.
You now have two larger tops and two smaller tapered bottoms.
Basically the pressure will push one into the other.

If you were to put another cone against the bottom as in bottom against taper on taper (small on small) you have a concentrated flow that pushed against each other. A repelling action.

It's a sort of on going siphon at one end and a reverse flow at the other, creating an ongoing sort of chain reaction which can only work as long as there is something that utilises the trapping of atmosphere in terms of broken dow matter.
By that I mean down to your individual molecules, as in your hydrogen/helium, etc type of split.


Another way to understand it is to look at a helium balloon and think how the atmosphere works against it. You can hold it in your hand and know that it wants to push up but you know the denser atmospjhere is trying to equalise the pressure by pushing/squeezing it.

Questions:

- What triggers magnet A to release its vortex?

Another magnet or something that is capable or trapping broken down matter.

- If A is triggered or constantly releasing its vortex, a couple of things;
    - How does it replenish its vortex to fire again when needed?

Natural recycling of the broken down molecules.
Think of a battery.
You flow around negative to positive and back but it charges as it uses a flow back to the battery.
A similar thing with a magnet.
I'm well aware it requires more explaining and I'm under no illusions about my explanations not being easily deciphered.
I know I'm speaking from my mindset and I know we are worlds apart in the grasp.
It's all about (like I said) nibbling away and finding a way to get to a point of understanding, even if it is brushed off by you or whoever.

    - If it's a constant release, what is constantly feeding it to do so

The atmosphere keeps the pressure upon it. It's like locking in a lesser mass of broken down molecules that are not capable of pushing back and overcoming the higher pressure.

    - I guess a side question is what is it about A that is different than B? Or are they both releasing their own vortex?

They both release their own respective strengths of trapped matter against the atmosphere but the strength can only be felt by opposing magnets or metals that are capable of holding the pressure back.

- Lastly, it's still unclear to me how the A vortex only pushes on the far side of B. Why does it not push from some other direction?

The magnet itself does nothing on its own other than hold pressure back.
Until something is acted upon it, like another magnet or a metal that can absorb by pressure push of another aided by the bigger push of the atmosphere itself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 23, 2021, 01:04:38 AM

There's always a medium.

Why?
Because you claim that all molecules must be magically glued together?

Call it glued if you want but all molecules are attached in many many forms. No free space. There must always be a medium which means everything we walk in or see through, etc.....is attached.
Never ever would there be any free space where nothing exists.
To think there is is to basically baffle your own mind and believe in things like empty space from a so called ball and atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 21, 2021, 10:33:22 PM

If it's my theory then obviously it's made up by myself.

OK then here it is all in one spot for you to explain with your theory:

An attraction and a repulsion at the same time. Explain that with your rubbish theory.

You're just showing exactly what I'm saying.

If you were to put another cone against the bottom as in bottom against taper on taper (small on small) you have a concentrated flow that pushed against each other. A repelling action.

And if you have it the other way around (large on large) you have the air around push them together. But that isn't what happens.

Again, your idea would indicate magnets have a "repulsive" side and an "attractive" side, where one side results in things moving towards it and the other side has things moving away.

But that isn't how magnets work.
Magnets have 2 poles where like poles repel and opposite poles attract.

You're just showing exactly what I'm saying.

Now explain why the exact same thing happens if all 3 magnets are turned around.
If your nonsense was correct, it shouldn't.

No free space.

Again, WHY?
So far all you have done is assert that. You have no justification for why that should be the case at all.

And again, how does the right side push the left side to the right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 23, 2021, 03:53:54 AM

If you were to put another cone against the bottom as in bottom against taper on taper (small on small) you have a concentrated flow that pushed against each other. A repelling action.

And if you have it the other way around (large on large) you have the air around push them together. But that isn't what happens.

Large on large creates the same repelling action.
Small on small repels.
Large against small creates the push for small into large.

Again, your idea would indicate magnets have a "repulsive" side and an "attractive" side, where one side results in things moving towards it and the other side has things moving away.

There's no such thing as an attractive side.
It's repel or push.
Attraction suggests a pull and a pull is absolutely impossible for attached medium of matter/molecules.

But that isn't how magnets work.
Magnets have 2 poles where like poles repel and opposite poles attract.

They have a larger atmospheric feed in and a smaller exit of higher pressure.

You're just showing exactly what I'm saying.

Now explain why the exact same thing happens if all 3 magnets are turned around.
If your nonsense was correct, it shouldn't.
[/quote]What do you mean?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 23, 2021, 03:57:27 AM

No free space.

Again, WHY?
So far all you have done is assert that. You have no justification for why that should be the case at all.

And you have zero justification as to why you believe there is free space of absolutely nothing, except to be told empty space is above you, yet you know you cannot fully evacuate a container.

And again, how does the right side push the left side to the right?

If you man the sides other than top and bottom, it's because there is a consistent feed. Think of it like a siphon being pushed through one end and returning around the magnet back into the vortex.

Large on large creates the same repelling action.
Small on small repels.
Large against small creates the push for small into large.

Why?
Can you draw a diagram showing the flow of air?

You previously described it as air flowing through from the large end and getting compressed as it reaches the small end.

This means you have a high pressure at the small end and a low pressure at the large end.

If you bring 2 of those small ends together, the high pressure results in them pushing away from each other.
Instead if you bring 2 of the large ends together, the low pressure results in the air around it pushing them together.


Your model has the 2 poles being fundamentally different, such that if you switched them on every magnet in existence, they would behave differently.
Reality has the 2 symmetric, such that switching them on all magnets would result in no difference.

There's no such thing as an attractive side.
It's repel or push.
Attraction suggests a pull and a pull is absolutely impossible for attached medium of matter/molecules.

That is your baseless claim, which you are yet to even attempt to justify.

But that is why I was nice, and put it in quotes and described what that meant, where it simply means things move closer to it, regardless of the cause.

What do you mean?

It has been clearly explained and relates directly to the above.

And you have zero justification as to why you believe there is free space of absolutely nothing

I do, you just ignore it.
The simplest is the motion of ions and electrons through very low pressure systems.
Especially for things like electron microscopes and mass spectrometers.
These rely upon the ion/electron moving through, without colliding.
If you introduce too much air, they stop working.
Even small amounts of air are enough to significantly reduce the resolution due to collisions between the air molecules and the ions/electrons deflecting them from the path they would need to take for a high resolution image.

Another is the phase transition from liquid to gas and vice versa, and the non-ideality of gasses.
If the molecules remained in contact, then there would be no sharp transition between liquid and gas.
You would simply have a liquid, which expands when heated, and behave as a less dense liquid.
Instead, the volume remains basically the same until it reaches a point where it changes to a gas and the volume increases dramatically. This dramatic change is caused by the molecules no longer being in contact and thus negligible forces existing between them to PULL them together (and yes, this is another example of how we know there is such thing as pull).

Another are materials which shrink when heated. An example of this is ice which takes up a smaller volume when it melts.
This is because when it is cold it is held in a rigid crystal structure with voids. When you heat it up, you break some of the bonds, allowing the molecules to move around and fill those voids, making it shrink.

So there is plenty of reason to think there is free space between molecules of a gas, and in some liquids and solids. But absolutely no reason at all to think there is no free space.
That is also why instead of even attempting to justify your claim, you just deflect and claim there is no reason to think otherwise.

So just why should anyone think that there is no such thing as free space? Why should anyone thing that molecules are always held together, filling all of space?

yet you know you cannot fully evacuate a container.

Who cares if you can or can't?
Not being able to evacuate it doesn't mean there is no free space between the molecules inside it.

If you man the sides other than top and bottom, it's because there is a consistent feed. Think of it like a siphon being pushed through one end and returning around the magnet back into the vortex.

So you are claiming you are pushing it all around Earth and it is actually being pushed from the left?

A flexible item, like a rope shows that isn't the case. If you push on the left side, it buckles.
In order to move the entire rope to the right, and keep it straight, you need to pull from the right side.
If it was the air pushing in from all around it would crush the object into a roughly spherical shape.

Can you draw a diagram showing where the forces are to make it move?

Having an object hold its shape requires pulling forces.
Can you explain why some things are fluids, while others are solid and others are gas?
If it is all just push, why isn't everything liquid, or gas?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

Large on large creates the same repelling action.
Small on small repels.
Large against small creates the push for small into large.

Why?
Can you draw a diagram showing the flow of air?

Potentially but it would be wasted on you.

You previously described it as air flowing through from the large end and getting compressed as it reaches the small end.

This means you have a high pressure at the small end and a low pressure at the large end.

So what's the issue?

If you bring 2 of those small ends together, the high pressure results in them pushing away from each other.
Instead if you bring 2 of the large ends together, the low pressure results in the air around it pushing them together.

No because you always have a flow into each and around each which results in a repelling action.

Your model has the 2 poles being fundamentally different, such that if you switched them on every magnet in existence, they would behave differently.
Reality has the 2 symmetric, such that switching them on all magnets would result in no difference.

They would behave how you see magnets behave.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

There's no such thing as an attractive side.
It's repel or push.
Attraction suggests a pull and a pull is absolutely impossible for attached medium of matter/molecules.

That is your baseless claim, which you are yet to even attempt to justify.

I'll never justify anything to you because you will never accept anything so I'm under no illusions about that and I'm fine with it.

But that is why I was nice, and put it in quotes and described what that meant, where it simply means things move closer to it, regardless of the cause.

I'm not interested in whether you're nice or not, you're not important. You get answered as and when I see fit.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

What do you mean?

It has been clearly explained and relates directly to the above.

Not really.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

And you have zero justification as to why you believe there is free space of absolutely nothing

I do, you just ignore it.
The simplest is the motion of ions and electrons through very low pressure systems.

Still in a medium.

Especially for things like electron microscopes and mass spectrometers.
These rely upon the ion/electron moving through, without colliding.

Still in a medium.

If you introduce too much air, they stop working.

Still a medium.

Even small amounts of air are enough to significantly reduce the resolution due to collisions between the air molecules and the ions/electrons deflecting them from the path they would need to take for a high resolution image.

Still a medium.

Another is the phase transition from liquid to gas and vice versa, and the non-ideality of gasses.

Again, still a medium. How can't you grasp this?

If the molecules remained in contact, then there would be no sharp transition between liquid and gas.
You would simply have a liquid, which expands when heated, and behave as a less dense liquid.

Do you think water in a swimming pool has free space?
If so, tell me about this free space of nothingness.

Instead, the volume remains basically the same until it reaches a point where it changes to a gas and the volume increases dramatically. This dramatic change is caused by the molecules no longer being in contact and thus negligible forces existing between them to PULL them together (and yes, this is another example of how we know there is such thing as pull).

Still a medium.

Another are materials which shrink when heated. An example of this is ice which takes up a smaller volume when it melts.
This is because when it is cold it is held in a rigid crystal structure with voids. When you heat it up, you break some of the bonds, allowing the molecules to move around and fill those voids, making it shrink.

Still a medium.

So there is plenty of reason to think there is free space between molecules of a gas, and in some liquids and solids. But absolutely no reason at all to think there is no free space.

There's plenty of reason to understand how free space renders life and all things impossible to bond and means no such life or objects could exist...but we know they do.
Why?
Because everything is attached. There has to be a medium. Simple as that.

That is also why instead of even attempting to justify your claim, you just deflect and claim there is no reason to think otherwise.

There's no deflection. That's your attempt to try and dig like you always do. You only wind yourself up.

So just why should anyone think that there is no such thing as free space? Why should anyone thing that molecules are always held together, filling all of space?

Nobody has to, not even you but you can see all around you and feel the air and such all around you and yet you somehow think there can be free space of absolute nothingness. It baffles me how people can but that's up to them...and you, of course.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

yet you know you cannot fully evacuate a container.

Who cares if you can or can't?
Not being able to evacuate it doesn't mean there is no free space between the molecules inside it.

It should give you a massive clue....but, you being you, I know it goes against your grain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

If you man the sides other than top and bottom, it's because there is a consistent feed. Think of it like a siphon being pushed through one end and returning around the magnet back into the vortex.

So you are claiming you are pushing it all around Earth and it is actually being pushed from the left?

A flexible item, like a rope shows that isn't the case. If you push on the left side, it buckles.
In order to move the entire rope to the right, and keep it straight, you need to pull from the right side.
If it was the air pushing in from all around it would crush the object into a roughly spherical shape.

It's called warping the atmosphere around the object.
A rope is not a good analogy and does not show anything.

Can you draw a diagram showing where the forces are to make it move?

I could but it would be wasted. I know how you play so I won't waste my time on that.

Having an object hold its shape requires pulling forces.

No such thing as pulling forces.

Can you explain why some things are fluids, while others are solid and others are gas?

Molecular density. Think back to my gobstopper analogy. Put some serious thought into it.

If it is all just push, why isn't everything liquid, or gas?

Because molecular density dictates what is pushed away in expansion by compression and what is stacked in that set up.

Large on large creates the same repelling action.
Small on small repels.
Large against small creates the push for small into large.

Ha Ha you are just making things up. How does your hogwash explain this:

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

Large on large creates the same repelling action.
Small on small repels.
Large against small creates the push for small into large.

Ha Ha you are just making things up. How does your hogwash explain this:

One magnet is being repelled and the other is being pushed into the larger.
What's the issue?

Quote from: Platonius21 on August 24, 2021, 09:19:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

Large on large creates the same repelling action.
Small on small repels.
Large against small creates the push for small into large.

Ha Ha you are just making things up. How does your hogwash explain this:

One magnet is being repelled and the other is being pushed into the larger.
What's the issue?

What causes the the direction of the "push" to change (in your theory). Why is one "pushed" away and the other "pushed" toward the large magnet?

Potentially but it would be wasted on you.

The only reason it would be wasted is if it doesn't show what you are trying to claim.
So draw a diagam.

So what's the issue?

I have clearly explained the issue, it doesn't result in the behaviour that is actually observed for magnets.

Ignoring that won't change that fact.

No because you always have a flow into each and around each which results in a repelling action.

Instead of just ignoring everything that shows you are wrong and asserting that it magically works, try an explanation.

How do these low pressure ends repel each other? Try to provide an actual explanation, preferably with diagrams to show what is happening.

And don't forget about your prior claim about vacuum cleaners with how if you get 2 of them and bring the nozzles together they will be stuck together.

I'll never justify anything to you because you will never accept anything

If you can actually justify it, I will accept it.
The reason I haven't accepted anything you have said is because you continually make baseless claims which are contradicted by reality or simply logic, or which contradict themselves.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 24, 2021, 12:19:24 AM

And you have zero justification as to why you believe there is free space of absolutely nothing

I do, you just ignore it.
The simplest is the motion of ions and electrons through very low pressure systems.

Still in a medium.

Notice how you flee from the issue.
The issue is free space between molecules.
With all the evidence showing that to be the case, you just ignore it and assert "still in a medium".
The point is there IS free space between molecules, unlike your baseless claim.

How about instead of dismissing all this that shows you are wrong as "there is a medium" you deal with the fact that it clearly shows that there is free space.

And then to get to if there is a medium or not comes down to what makes a "medium".
Is free space a medium?

If you have a box 1 light year wide, with a single atom inside it, is that still a medium?

And then then relates directly back to your claim about compression or expansion.
You aren't compressing or expanding the molecules, you are giving them more room to move.

Do you think water in a swimming pool has free space?

Yes, as shown by the fact you can dissolve things into it without increasing the volume.
It is no where near the amount of free space that a gas has, but it does still have some.

There's plenty of reason to understand how free space renders life and all things impossible to bond and means no such life or objects could exist.

No, there isn't.
This is yet another baseless claim of yours, with absolutely no justification.
Having an atom or molecule surrounded by a large amount of free space, means it isn't currently bonding to anything else.
That is called gas.
But no one is suggesting life is a gas. Instead, the things which make up life, for example, your skin, has molecules which are touching.
That doesn't mean there is no free space, or that free space is impossible.
All it means is that life is not a gas.

And why bring up bonding? Again, bonding just shows you are wrong. Bonding requires attractive forces, i.e. pulling.
Bonding has atoms held together, by that bond, such that if the atom on the right is moved to the right, it will pull the atom on the left to the right.

Yet you claim that attraction, that pulling, doesn't exist.
Without pulling forces, without attraction, there can be no solids or liquids, there can be no complex arrangements of atoms. Everything would be a gas and life would not exist.

Now stop just repeatedly asserting garbage, and try providing an actual justification for your garbage.

Try to justify why free space cannot exist, justify why every molecule must be touching molecules on every side.

There's no deflection.

Some times it seems like all you do is deflect.
Rather than even attempt to provide a justification or diagram for how your magnets work, you just assert they work and insult me.
You completely deflect away from the issue of 2 low pressure ends of the magnets logically being pushed together by the air around them.

When shown many arguments which clearly show that free space is real, you just ignore them all and assert that there is a medium, in no way addressing the argument.

So there is plenty of deflection from you, but never any actual explanation.

Nobody has to

I didn't ask why they have to, I asked why they should.
So yet another deflection from you.

you can see all around you and feel the air and such all around you

Most people don't see or feel the air, as that is what they are used to.
But that in no way shows there is no free space.

It should give you a massive clue

If you understood how evacuation of a container works, it doesn't give any clue as to there being no free space.
With your fantasy, there will always be at least one molecule inside, with it getting more and more massive.
With reality it is a matter of having all the molecules get to the pump. This is because you aren't magically sucking the molecules out. Instead you are allowing them to get to the pump and then the pump pushes them out.
When you have very few molecules inside, they are quite unlikely to randomly collide with the pump, and thus are quite unlikely to be pushed out of the container. That combined with the fact that it is extremely difficult to get a perfectly air-tight seal, means that there will likely always be a small number of molecules inside the container.

But again, that doesn't mean that there is no free space between the molecules.

It's called warping the atmosphere around the object.

Just how does it warp the atmosphere around the object? Again, can you draw a picture, or can you just provide vague claims to pretend there is no problem?

A rope is not a good analogy and does not show anything.

It is a great example, which clearly shows that pushing on the left is fundamentally different to pulling on the right, that different forces are involved.

I could but it would be wasted.

You mean you cant draw one as you are claiming pure nonsense, and any attempt at pretending you can will be refuted. So rather than even try you just insult me.

No such thing as pulling forces.

That is your baseless claim which you are yet to even attempt to justify, that you flee from queries for you to justify; and which is refuted by reality.

Quote from: JackBlack

Can you explain why some things are fluids, while others are solid and others are gas?

Molecular density. Think back to my gobstopper analogy. Put some serious thought into it.

Follow your own advice and try actually putting thought into it.

Density explains why there are different densities.
It does not explain why there are several phases of matter with fundamentally different properties.

But pulling forces do.
Solids are solids because of the pulling forces holding them together in a rigid structure.
Liquids are liquids because the molecules/atoms have enough energy to overcome these intermolecular forces at the small scale and hop around between different molecules.
Gasses are gasses because the molecules/atoms now have enough energy to break free entirely from the intermolecular forces and go flying off with loads of free space between them.

It is difficult to deform a large solid object, because doing so requires breaking the bonds between the parts of the substance, and different substances have different difficulty due to the different pulling forces between them.
And this difference in properties is not dependent upon density. The simple fact that not everything has a constant specific strength shows this.

In a liquid, these bonds are already breaking and reforming, so it is much easier to move through, but there is still significant attraction so there is still a significant resistance.

In a gas, these bonds are effectively broken and there is negligible attraction between the molecules/atoms, so it is very easy to move through. It is only when you start trying to move a large amount of those molecules/atoms that it becomes difficult, due to their inertia.

So rather than just providing 1 or 2 word nonsense, can you provide an actual justification?
This would be where you clearly explain these fundamentally different phases of matter and what causes these differences.

One magnet is being repelled and the other is being pushed into the larger.
What's the issue?

The issue is why is there this difference?
Why does it push one away but attract the other.

Again, this is the fundamental issue of magnetism you cannot explain.
Your model indicates magnets should have an attractive pole and a repulsive pole.
But reality shows that is not the case at all.

What causes the the direction of the "push" to change (in your theory). Why is one "pushed" away and the other "pushed" toward the large magnet?

Read back, I explained it.

Quote from: Platonius21 on August 24, 2021, 09:38:51 AM

What causes the the direction of the "push" to change (in your theory). Why is one "pushed" away and the other "pushed" toward the large magnet?

Read back, I explained it.

No, you didn't.

Again, nice and simple, draw a diagram showing the 4 possible arrangements of 2 magnets interacting end on.
Then show the 2 options for side on.
For both, make sure you include an explanation, and don't contradict them.

Then compare that with reality.

Again, your model with a low pressure and high pressure side of the magnet will result in 2 high pressure sides moving away and 2 low pressure sides moving towards each other. But in reality, both of those arrangements repel.

And if you can't figure that out, try explaining why there are different phases of matter if there are no pulling forces.

Quote from: Platonius21 on August 24, 2021, 09:38:51 AM

What causes the the direction of the "push" to change (in your theory). Why is one "pushed" away and the other "pushed" toward the large magnet?

Read back, I explained it.

Your "explanation" was that one was being repelled (pushed away) and the other was being pushed toward.

That is not an explanation, it is just a statement about which way the magnets move. Please explain WHY one small magnet moves away and the other moves toward the large magnet according to your "theory".  Why does the "push" change direction?

Strange how no one has ever noticed this enormous amount of air movement around every magnet (including the ones in high vacuum apparently).