Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

Gee…

I am a genius. I'm a simplistic genius. I see things that many don't. I turn the complicated into the less complicated so that the normal every day person can get the chance to grasp stuff.
I am a normal every day person just as most are.
Those that are not in the category I mention, are those that believe they are top scientists who prefer to follow the round the block procedures of science rather than simply taking the direct route.
the reason why science is made into gobbledygook is so the average Joe doesn't bother to attempt to decipher the reality within it.

Yet you can’t model a simple ball drop.

 Nor come up with an experiment to prove den-pressure.

Even tried to make a thread to help you out…

Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91690.0

Who posted “science is made into gobbledygook is so the average Joe doesn't bother to attempt to decipher the reality within it.”

Yet, you sceptimatic, can’t take the time to actually go beyond your gobbledygook of your car salesmen pitch to pursue real science to decipher your gobbledygook into an actual experiment.


You goal is always to be vague to troll. The only end game for you is to maintain the attention with no care if den-pressure is nothing more than a delusion.


Again. To the average Joe,  please show…. How tides work.

What's your gravity manual doing for it?

How to size a motor with the correct power rating to lift things up against the force of gravity.

You can balance an empty elevator car with counter weights.  I never seen an elevator in a building or a freight elevator in normal operations add or remove counter weights as the load in the elevator changed.


Now show how to use den pressure to size a motor for an elevator. 

Sceptimatic, I have a burning question: why do layers exist? Why are "bottom" layers of air denser than higher ones? It's the same air. What compresses it?

And by free space, do you mean vacuum? Because if molecules are further apart in the less dense air, there's nothing between them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:00:51 AM

How convenient.
If I'd have said this it would be rightly laughed at but when mainstream majority adherence is on offer it becomes a magical something that is nothing but is told and sold as something...and so on and so on and so on.

The distinction between what you are providing and gravity is that you providing an alleged manifestation of a particular combination of forces, where it is an interaction between the air and the object which magically causes it to go down.
Conversely, gravity is much more fundamental - mass attracts mass.

Mass attracting mass means nothing until you show how and why.
Just offering gravity and saying it's a fundamental force is offering absolutely nothing.
I've offered reality. And the biggest and saddest thing about it is, people can actually see what's happening but think that gravity has to be involved for it to work and yet gravity cannot and never has been explained as to what it is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:00:51 AM

Gravity has no explanation for reality in any way shape or form.

Yet plenty of things have been explained using gravity with you unable to show a single fault.

Nothing has been explained using gravity.
Plenty has been explained under a pretence of a fictional force called gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:00:51 AM

You observe mass repelling mass by compressive force and that has nothing whatsoever to do with a fictional gravity.

And more delusional BS.
Again, look at the Cavendish experiment. Mass attracts mass. The masses aren't repelled from each other, they are attracted to each other.
Let me guess, the use of the word attraction upsets you because you link it to a pulling force which you want to pretend can't exist?

A pulling force cannot exist.
Compression and expansion creating compression is all that can be achieved.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:00:51 AM

Gravity will only ever be found out as a fictional word describing something that has a more real-life sense to it

Your statement makes no sense.
What you are really saying here is that gravity is real but can be explained by something more fundamental.

No, I'm saying gravity does not exist and can be explained by forces that are actually real.

But you have nothing to support such a claim. Your garbage clearly doesn't explain it.
Again, the pressure gradient in the atmosphere is inexplicable without something like gravity, and would result in the object being pushed up. And with the claim that it pushes down, there is no way for it to explain the results of the Cavendish experiment.

You can't push down without a push-up. It's that simple.
It's merely the compressive forces of molecules in their varying states of layers that actually make layers naturally in the atmosphere.

Your nonsense cannot act as a replacement for gravity.

Gravity does not and never will exist.

So if you want to find something more fundamental you need to look elsewhere.

I'm absolutely fine with what I go with.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:00:51 AM

They don't pass through each other because they are too dense to do so.
So all they can do is compress against each other if energy is applied horizontally or if one is atop another and uses its own atmospheric displacement by its own dense mass to apply a directional force to the other whilst the other is resisted by the compact ground below.

This explains nothing.
Why does being too dense mean they can't pass through each other?

No dense mass can pass through any dense mass, no matter what it is.
It can compress or displace but it cannot simply pass through.

 Especially when you claim there is no free space and no pulling force to hold objects together.

There is and never will be free space and there will never be a pulling force other than face value vision of us seeing forces and identifying it as a pull without investigating it further.

If all that is true, then if I pick up 2 blocks of steel and push them together they should pass through each other or merge into 1.

If you melt them then you can merge them but you'll only do it by displacement of molecules. You simply cannot pass anything through as individual molecules against individual molecules.

But even that doesn't address the issue, the key issue is why 2 molecules push against each other. Why can't they just pass through each other?

Because they can only become a part of each other under extreme compression and become more denser for it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:00:51 AM

I'd love to see this done in a large sealed container that has been evacuated of a lot of atmosphere.

Go ahead.

I'm sure you haven't done it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:00:51 AM

Of course I'll dismiss it. I'm not going to accept something I know in my mind, is not real.

You mean that you THINK in your mind is not real.
And this is truly the issue with you, and why your request was so dishoenst.
You think gravity is fake. You will NEVER accept ANYTHING that demonstrates it is real.

I'll accept everything if it's proven to be a reality.
There's a hell of a lot of this stuff that has no proof attached and that is why it's being questioned and cast aside as pointless in some cases.

Nothing will ever be good enough for you, because it is incompatible with your delusional fantasy.

ANything can be good enough for me if there's something to the story that can be verified.

So anything that does demonstrate gravity you will either dismiss as fake, or dismiss with some vague BS about how your delusional garbage gives the same result.

Demonstrate gravity and show why it works and I'll be all ears.
Nothing has been remotely done to do that other than offering pretences.

And that means you asking for something that demonstrates gravity was entirely pointless and dishonest as you will just dismiss whatever is provided.

Of course it's pointless if it cannot be proven.
Just offering some Cavendish experiment and saying its gravity doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:00:51 AM

If you're talking about the Cavendish experiment then it's simply masses displacing atmosphere and atmospheric vibration and pressure that the masses react back against which will enable a small push in the direction the vibration is at the time.

You are just asserting the same dishonest BS with no explanation.
I didn't ask you to repeat the same BS, I asked up to explain how.

You get what you get just like I do with you.

How does the air push the objects together.

Compression and vibration and frequencies of it.

Why does one mass displacing air push objects towards it?

If you're talking about a delicate Cavendish pivot then it's simply vibration and pressures simply upsetting the balance of the mass on the pivot.

Just like you claim the air crushes objects down while being entirely incapable of explaining HOW the air is crushing the object down; and just like you claim the atmosphere stacks, without explaining HOW or WHY it stacks to create a pressure gradient.
You explain nothing. Probably because you can't.

I even showed you diagrams of a pyramid of molecules to show you and you simply bypassed it and told me I offered nothing.
That's not my issue anymore if you won't take the time to grasp it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:01:59 AM

What is inertia?

Something that has been explained to you repeatedly, but which you dismiss because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.

And again, what is inertia?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:01:59 AM

Ok then explain how you measure mass to give weight without a scale plate.

Mass and weight are 2 different things.
But again, this is just a deflection form your inability to provide an explanation.
The way the mass is measured is irrelevant to the question.

Of course mass and weight are two different things.
Weight is simply the person-made measurement of any dense mass displacing the atmosphere it is in by the entirety of that dense mass minus the natural volume within.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:01:59 AM

Ok, I have no issue with this but you need to answer the question before we can proceed.

If you honestly had no issue you would have provided your explanation and indicated where more information is needed.
Instead, you KNOW you cannot explain it, so you deflect at all costs.

It seems you are backed into a corner.

Again, you have a 1 kg mass in air. How does the air make it move?

You need energy to make it move.
All the mass is doing is displacing the air with what you're offering.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 01:01:59 AM

Displacement of the atmosphere by any dense mass placed within it which compresses it by that entire dense mass structure minus the natural volume within.

And notice what is entirely lacking? Any reason for the object to move.
The atmosphere compressing an object doesn't magically make it move.

I never said it did.
I said the object has to have energy applied.
If not it simply just displaces the atmosphere and uses a foundation in which to resist it.

The point is that there ARE pressure gradients in fluids.
This destroys your nonsense as you have no explanation for it.

It doesn't destroy anything of mine. I've always said there was. There has to be pressure stacking just like the atmosphere.
the only difference is in a higher dense mass of water against the atmosphere.
This actually destroys gravity in addition to it already getting destroyed at every turn.

Without a downwards force like gravity, the pressure in the fluid will push against any pressure gradient to equalise the pressure.

All molecular pressures will try to equalise. But doing so is impossible.

 This is quite easy to demonstrate with a horizontal setup, or with a pressure gradient other than that caused by a downwards force.

Explain.

Once you have this pressure gradient, this means as you get higher, the pressure gets lower.

I've said it for long enough.

 Eventually this drops off to the pressure of space (effectively 0).

No. It drops off to the pressure of the dome. It basically freezes. It goes dormant due to molecular breakdown and expansion which takes up less area in each layer of the stacked atmosphere.

This means you do not need a container to contain the gas as the pressure gradient does it naturally.

The dome is a natural container but it absolutely must have a foundation, which it does. Something a spinning globe absolutely can not.

You have even admitted that vacuums do not suck and instead high pressure pushes towards lower pressure. This is how a vacuum cleaner works.

Absolutely and nothing I've said goes against that.

And what that means is that in order to have the gas go into space you need to have the high pressure at the bottom of the stack push the air up into space. And if it was able to do that it would eliminate any pressure gradient.

No. The gradient is the push-on push of denser to less dense molecules in the stack. The pressure of push on push or resistance against resistance diminishes in pressure as the stack builds up.
Eventually, there's little dense mass of molecules to vibrate anymore because the molecular make-up is broken down massively leaving it dormant, meaning an ice dome.

For this to happen it must have a foundation to build into a dome, which it does.

For your fantasy Earth you would still need a container to prevent it spilling off the sides, but for the RE in reality, it doesn't have a side for it to fall off as it is a continuous surface.

Nothing needs to spill to any side. It's a sealed unit. It's a cell.

The foundation merely rises as you move along the Earth.
The stacking system then freezes all around and over the top to naturally sit as a final cell skin, if you like.

Gee…

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 12, 2016, 09:44:59 AM

I am a genius. I'm a simplistic genius. I see things that many don't. I turn the complicated into the less complicated so that the normal every day person can get the chance to grasp stuff.
I am a normal every day person just as most are.
Those that are not in the category I mention, are those that believe they are top scientists who prefer to follow the round the block procedures of science rather than simply taking the direct route.
the reason why science is made into gobbledygook is so the average Joe doesn't bother to attempt to decipher the reality within it.

Yet you can’t model a simple ball drop.

 Nor come up with an experiment to prove den-pressure.

Even tried to make a thread to help you out…

Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91690.0

Who posted “science is made into gobbledygook is so the average Joe doesn't bother to attempt to decipher the reality within it.”

Yet, you sceptimatic, can’t take the time to actually go beyond your gobbledygook of your car salesmen pitch to pursue real science to decipher your gobbledygook into an actual experiment.


You goal is always to be vague to troll. The only end game for you is to maintain the attention with no care if den-pressure is nothing more than a delusion.


Again. To the average Joe,  please show…. How tides work.

Seeing how you enjoy going right back to pick up what I said then maybe do so once again to find my answer to tides.
Maybe ask Jack and co and they may help you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 25, 2023, 11:19:01 PM

What's your gravity manual doing for it?

How to size a motor with the correct power rating to lift things up against the force of gravity.

You can balance an empty elevator car with counter weights.  I never seen an elevator in a building or a freight elevator in normal operations add or remove counter weights as the load in the elevator changed.


Now show how to use den pressure to size a motor for an elevator.

How about you show me how you use gravity to do it.

Sceptimatic, I have a burning question: why do layers exist? Why are "bottom" layers of air denser than higher ones? It's the same air. What compresses it?

It isn't the same air.
It appears to be the same but it isn't.

I put out an analogy to molecules by using a gobstopper to show layers within a molecule.
Molecular addition or breakdown happens depending on the pressures each molecule is under.

This is why we can have so many different configurations of solids and liquids and gases.

Everything is under vibration and frequencies galore and pressures galore.
The pressure builds when one molecule stacks atop another and so on and so on, with each resisting a little bit more than the other atop it.

And by free space, do you mean vacuum? Because if molecules are further apart in the less dense air, there's nothing between them.

There's no such thing as a true vacuum.
All matter is connected and there cannot be free space, ever.

And molecules are never farther apart they are always attached to each other in their layers.
Instead of a vacuum it simply gets to extremely low pressure above compared to below.

This happens because there are fewer layers in the molecules than the molecules farther down and each is resisting one another in different dense pressures.

How about you show me how you use gravity to do it.

You mean use the measured value of gravity found through experiments that provides the right amount of force with the correct units to make this work?



  As in the based off units of weight?  To show gravity exerts a force on mass.


Instead of bitching page after page about gravity and how it provides basic engineering solutions so things like sizing a motor for an everyday elevator only takes a few minutes, you could actual show how to do it with den-pressure.

But, your delusion of den-pressure is FUCKING unless.

You can’t even model the simple physics of a ball drop with any accuracy against real works measurements. 

Den-pressure, the delusion it is, has been shown to have no real world application.  It doesn’t make anything better.  Den-pressure is only good as tool for trolling.

It isn't the same air.
It appears to be the same but it isn't.

Then why does this “layering” not take place in a gas bottle.


Why don’t we see the compression of sea water in a column of sea water to change density at the same rate, or at a related predictable rate, as seen in the atmosphere. 

There has to be pressure stacking just like the atmosphere.

What force is causing the atmosphere to compress more at sea level to “compress oxygen and nitrogen gas” to override the tendency for the diatomic molecules to bounce off each other and dissipate to fill uniformly the available space as outlined by gas laws. 

By the way.  Pressure is controlled  through temperature and the amount of kinetic energy a gas has.

The pressure law states that for a constant volume of gas in a sealed container the temperature of the gas is directly proportional to its pressure

https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/squash-ball

You can take a large gas bottle, and say fill it with 5 pounds mass of oxygen gas that is -150 degrees Fahrenheit so it has normal atmospheric pressure.

Then heat that bottle if it’s made to do so and hold the pressure to 100 degrees Fahrenheit.  The mass of the bottle and the mass of the oxygen doesn’t change.  The pressure in the gas bottle will be uniform but increase. There will be no layering.  I would say the free space between the gas molecules would be the same. So no real change in density of the gas. And I would say the weight of the oxygen and the gas bottle would be the same, and not dependent on temperature.  Nor pressure. 


So what would your den-pressure delusion model? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 08:23:15 AM

How about you show me how you use gravity to do it.

You mean use the measured value of gravity found through experiments that provides the right amount of force with the correct units to make this work?



  As in the based off units of weight?  To show gravity exerts a force on mass.


Instead of bitching page after page about gravity and how it provides basic engineering solutions so things like sizing a motor for an everyday elevator only takes a few minutes, you could actual show how to do it with den-pressure.

But, your delusion of den-pressure is FUCKING unless.

You can’t even model the simple physics of a ball drop with any accuracy against real works measurements. 

Den-pressure, the delusion it is, has been shown to have no real world application.  It doesn’t make anything better.  Den-pressure is only good as tool for trolling.

Try and calm yourself down and then see if you can offer a simple explanation for gravity in your lift setup.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 08:32:40 AM

It isn't the same air.
It appears to be the same but it isn't.

Then why does this “layering” not take place in a gas bottle.

It does.

Why don’t we see the compression of sea water in a column of sea water to change density at the same rate, or at a related predictable rate, as seen in the atmosphere.

We do but in a more dense setup.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 08:16:46 AM

There has to be pressure stacking just like the atmosphere.

What force is causing the atmosphere to compress more at sea level to “compress oxygen and nitrogen gas” to override the tendency for the diatomic molecules to bounce off each other and dissipate to fill uniformly the available space as outlined by gas laws.

The bouncing off each other is not what you think. It's vibration and compression against each other and the frequency of it.

By the way.  Pressure is controlled  through temperature and the amount of kinetic energy a gas has.

Quote

The pressure law states that for a constant volume of gas in a sealed container the temperature of the gas is directly proportional to its pressure

https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/squash-ball

You can take a large gas bottle, and say fill it with 5 pounds mass of oxygen gas that is -150 degrees Fahrenheit so it has normal atmospheric pressure.

Then heat that bottle if it’s made to do so and hold the pressure to 100 degrees Fahrenheit.  The mass of the bottle and the mass of the oxygen doesn’t change.  The pressure in the gas bottle will be uniform but increase. There will be no layering.  I would say the free space between the gas molecules would be the same. So no real change in density of the gas. And I would say the weight of the oxygen and the gas bottle would be the same, and not dependent on temperature.  Nor pressure. 


So what would your den-pressure delusion model?

Just like the atmosphere the layering will change inside the bottle because of temperature changes.

You're right in that the molecules containerised will not alter in number but they will alter in vibration at the points that are under temperature change.

Unless you're meaning something else.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 26, 2023, 08:51:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 08:16:46 AM

There has to be pressure stacking just like the atmosphere.

What force is causing the atmosphere to compress more at sea level to “compress oxygen and nitrogen gas” to override the tendency for the diatomic molecules to bounce off each other and dissipate to fill uniformly the available space as outlined by gas laws.

The bouncing off each other is not what you think. It's vibration and compr5ession against each other and the frequency of it.

The why is there no layering in a gas bottle.

And pressure is related to kinetic energy of the molecule.  They don’t vibrate, they bounce off each other and the surface of the container.  They bounce around to cause pressure to be read off pressure gauge.

Look up

The Bourdon tube: the primary pressure-sensing element, this tube flexes in response to pressure

https://blog.qrfs.com/42-digital-pressure-gauges-the-future-is-here/

It does.

Then prove it.  And if it does, to what extent.

Remember, you’re posting in terms of pressure and density.

Show where in a pressure bottle the pressure is layered. 

We do but in a more dense setup.

To what extent.  And show your modeling that predicts it for the atmosphere and sea water.

The only thing you ever offer is paragraph after paragraph of BS with no effort to prove anything with physical evidence.

You’re the Trump of denpressue. 

The bouncing off each other is not what you think. It's vibration and compr5ession against each other and the frequency of it.

I was pondering through experiment ideas with placing a lead block on a balance scale in a sealed chamber, suck out the atmosphere, and take the system to temperatures where all gasses would be a liquid.  No atmosphere on the block and scale.  Approaching absolute zero where vibration would approach zero.

By the way.  You can achieve zero atmospheric gas pressure with drawing off the gas out of the chamber then refrigerating the whole thing below temps an atmosphere would exist, and weight is still going to be dominated by gravity. 

Anyway…

Then it came to me how delusional den-pressure is.

In the real world outside your delusion where modeling and accurate predictability occurs.

There is the lowly vertical hanging spring scale with a metal spring.  Hang a 10 lbs (pounds as mass where gravity is exerting a force on the mass.  Why an elevator has to do work rated in horse power to pull cars from a more dense atmosphere into less dense atmosphere) foam block with less density from the hook of the spring that has more density.  The scale spring will extend downward in accordance with Hooke’s law and gravity.  I would dare even say directionality.

Another model that works and produces predictable and useable results. 

In your delusion.  Some how the less dense atmosphere is pushing the foam block into more dense atmosphere causing the steel spring that is more dense than the foam block to be pulled down by the less dense foam block.  Again, from less dense atmosphere into more dense atmosphere.

With you having no explanation why den-pressure can’t use density as a force to make things fall sideways.

Den-pressure is nonsensical. 

How about you show me how you use gravity to do it.

the mysterious gravity goes through all things drawingt htem together.

your spongey air requires the air to push ON the surface of things as well as being able to push THROUGH onto things.
how does it push on and through?
how does the measurable air do both when air can clearly be isolated in a jar/ container?

Mass attracting mass means nothing until you show how and why.

Again, it is a fundamental force. You can't much more fundamental than that.
The best we have is mass bending spacetime and causing an object to follow that curved space time.

I've offered reality.

No, you have offered delusional BS which entirely fails to explain reality.

And the biggest and saddest thing about it is, people can actually see what's happening but think that gravity has to be involved for it to work and yet gravity cannot and never has been explained as to what it is.

The saddest thing is how you keep coming back and spouting the same refuted delusional BS.
Again, even the most basic thing in your fantasy, the stacked atmosphere, relies upon a downwards force not coming from the air.
Gravity works to explain what is observed.
You are just complaining that it is a fundamental force.

Plenty has been explained under a pretence of a fictional force called gravity.

i.e., plenty has been explained by gravity, but you hate gravity because it shows your delusional garbage is pure BS, so you reject it and claim nothing has been.
Truly dishonest, and truly pathetic.

A pulling force cannot exist.

Your baseless claim means nothing.
Observations of reality clearly demonstrates pulling forces do exist.
Your hatred of reality will not change that.

No, I'm saying gravity does not exist and can be explained by forces that are actually real.

No, you are saying gravity does exist, but can be explained by more fundamental forces.
i.e. gravity, a force between masses, drawing them together, is actually a manifestation of a more fundamental force.
That is saying gravity is real, but is not fundamental.

You even want to claim that the Cavendish experiment, which clearly produces observations of mass attracting mass, is actually just a magical manifestation of the air.

So that is saying gravity is real, but is explained by the air.

If you wanted to go down a different path, you would be claiming the results of the Cavendish experiment should be no apparent attraction showing gravity is not real. But then you would be arguing against reality even more apparently.

You can't push down without a push-up. It's that simple.

No, it isn't that simple. Yet again, you provide a baseless assertion. And you don't even address the issue.
Again, the air pressure, being greater below, pushes objects up, not down. This applies to the air itself as well. So you need something like gravity to explain the pressure gradient.

Gravity does not and never will exist.

Again, you hatred of reality wont make gravity magically vanish.
You hating it so much in no way helps provide a viable alternative.
Your hatred of gravity doesn't mean your nonsense magically explains anything.

We still have the RE model with gravity, providing a holistic explanation of so many things it isn't funny, vs your garbage which can't even explain some of the most basic things.

No dense mass can pass through any dense mass, no matter what it is.
It can compress or displace but it cannot simply pass through.

Again, this is just repeating the same assertion.
It is NOT explaining why.
So again, why can't mass pass through other mass?
Don't just restate that it can't. Provide the fundamental explanation for WHY it can't.

If you don't want to accept a fundamental force like gravity as mass attracting mass as an explanation, why should anyone accept your assertion that mass can't pass through mass as an explanation of anything?

Yet again you appeal to an incredibly dishonest double standard where you dismiss what you don't like using pathetic argument which apply vastly more to your claims, yet you expect us to just happily accept your garbage and pretend that your garbage is justified.
This shows your position is intellectually bankrupt.
If you applies the same standard you use with gravity on your own garbage you would dismiss it all.

There is and never will be free space and there will never be a pulling force other than face value vision of us seeing forces and identifying it as a pull without investigating it further.

Again, your baseless assertions are useless.
If you want to claim there is and never will be free space, you need to provide a justification for why. Not merely repeating your claim that molecules will magically expand, but actually explains why it cannot exist at all, even as a hypothetical, to make any system which uses it nonsense.
You also need to provide an explanation for the things which rely upon it.

Likewise, if you want to dismiss pulling forces, you need to explain forces at the most fundamental level to explain why you can't have pulling forces, and then explain everything which relies upon pulling forces. And that means actually explaining it, rather than trying to find a pushing force involved somewhere and pretending that explains it all. Again, a very superficial investigation will identify such a pushing force, and then proceed to dishonestly claim that is all there is. A deeper, more honest investigation will find plenty of pulling forces.
Do you know the only time "pulling" forces become irrelevant? When you go to a gas, when there is so much free space between molecules that the attraction between them is insignificant.

You simply cannot pass anything through as individual molecules against individual molecules.

Again, repeating the same baseless assertion wont help you.

Because they can only become a part of each other under extreme compression and become more denser for it.

Who said anything about becoming part of each other.
I just want the fundamental explanation for why I can't push to bits of matter through each other.
What is it fundamentally that stops one molecule passing through another?

I'm sure you haven't done it.

YOU are the one who wants to see it, so YOU go do it.
Don't expect other people to do it for you.

I'll accept everything if it's proven to be a reality.

Again, your own statements show this is a blatant lie.
Once you have decided in your mind that something is fictional will refuse to accept anything that shows otherwise.

There's a hell of a lot of this stuff that has no proof attached and that is why it's being questioned and cast aside as pointless in some cases.

Yes, like your delusional garbage, and very much unlike gravity, which has plenty of evidence supporting it and in plenty of cases is the only viable explanation.

Of course it's pointless if it cannot be proven.

It has been proven and you dismiss it.

Compression and vibration and frequencies of it.

This does not explain anything.
Why should this result in the masses being pushed towards each other?

I even showed you diagrams of a pyramid of molecules to show you

Which is still just a restatement of what is observed.
You may as well have just said that air is stacked with higher pressure at the bottom.
You useless pyramid does not provide an explanation.
So it is still entirely your issue.
You have no explanation for why the atmosphere stacks such that there is higher pressure at the bottom.

Do you understand the difference between an explanation and a statement of an observation?

And again, what is inertia?

And again, something that has been explained to you several times with you just entirely ignoring it because it doesn't match your fantasy.
I'm not going to waste time explaining it again just for you to ignore it again, especially when it is so unrelated to the topic.

Of course mass and weight are two different things.

Then why ask how you measure mass to give weight?

It seems you are backed into a corner.

Quite the opposite.
You know you cannot explain it. That any attempt at explaining this just by using the atmosphere will result in the same behaviour for both objects, that your delusional garbage cannot explain why some objects fall and others rise. Instead you need to know the density of the object so you can appeal to gravity and the buoyant force to pretend to explain it. So you do whatever you can to dodge rather than answering what should be a simple question.

You need energy to make it move.
All the mass is doing is displacing the air with what you're offering.

So you admit your model is pure garbage, that all the mass is doing is displacing the air and the air is NOT making the object move?
That the entire of your denpressure garbage is pure garbage which doesn't explain why things fall?

I never said it did.

You have repeatedly said it does, that the atmosphere crushes the object up or down.
So thanks for finally admitting denpressure is pure garbage which doesn't explain why things fall.

It doesn't destroy anything of mine.

Until you can provide a coherent explanation for why a pressure gradient exists (which is not simply saying it does), it does kill your BS.

This actually destroys gravity in addition to it already getting destroyed at every turn.

You sure do love your delusional assertions.
Gravity directly explains why there is a pressure gradient, and indirectly, through this pressure gradient, explains the upwards buoyant force, and thus why some objects sink and others float.

So no, this doesn't destroy gravity at all. And as stated previously, the only way to pretend it does (and appear even remotely honest) is by admitting your claims are pure garbage because the high pressure below should push the fluid above to destroy the pressure gradient.

All molecular pressures will try to equalise.

So the pressure gradient should be destroyed? That the atmosphere, even if stacked, should be an equal pressure throughout, and likewise water should be an equal pressure throughout?

Quote from: JackBlack

This is quite easy to demonstrate with a horizontal setup, or with a pressure gradient other than that caused by a downwards force.

Explain.

Take 2 airtight containers, with a connection between them that can be opened or closed (being air tight when closed, and only connecting them when open (so no leaking to the outside either)).
Have one at a pressure of 1 atmosphere, and the other at a pressure of 2 atmospheres. Then open the connection between them, and observe the pressures equalise.
The only time this doesn't happen is if you have something maintaining the pressure gradient.
For example, if you have a sealed container continually accelerating with that acceleration creating a pressure gradient, i.e. the principles upon which a centrifuge work.
Or, the vertical pressure gradient due to gravity.

No. It drops off to the pressure of the dome. It basically freezes.

The freezing point lowers as the pressure gets lower.
It wont magically freeze.
But regardless, this still works on a RE, but instead of a dome you get a spherical shell.

And what happens if the pressure of space is greater than the pressure of your magical dome (especially as you can't tell us anything about it). Then if you get high enough, you reach the pressure of space, and so the air doesn't come off Earth.

Either way, you claim is pure BS.

As soon as you admit that there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere you lose the argument of saying a RE would have the atmosphere get sucked off into space.

Something a spinning globe absolutely can not.

Repeating the same dishonest BS will not help you.
Once more, why can't the RE be the foundation?
Do you have ANYTHING other than your truly pathetic assertion?

You are basically just boldly claiming Earth can't be round and throwing a tantrum.

Absolutely and nothing I've said goes against that.

Except your claim that the RE atmosphere would be sucked off into space.

Again, based upon what you have said, you would need the pressure at the bottom to be enough to overcome the force of gravity (or whatever else you want to claim magically causes the stacking) and push the air up and into space.

It isn't the same air.

It is the same air, just at a different pressure.

The air mixes, and you can even take the air from above and take it back down below.

This is why we can have so many different configurations of solids and liquids and gases.

No, we have so many different configurations due to free spaces and forces you claim can't exist.

If your delusional garbage was true, you should be able to take water (or even air), vibrate it in some magical way, and turn it into gold.
Especially as water and gold can sit directly beside each other demonstrating that according to your garbage the pressure, magical breakdown etc should be the same.

The pressure builds when one molecule stacks atop another and so on and so on, with each resisting a little bit more than the other atop it.

Again, WHY?
Why does one molecule stacking upon another cause the lower layer to be higher pressure if there is not a downwards force like gravity?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 08:32:40 AM

The pressure builds when one molecule stacks atop another and so on and so on, with each resisting a little bit more than the other atop it.

Again, WHY?
Why does one molecule stacking upon another cause the lower layer to be higher pressure if there is not a downwards force like gravity?

It’s even worse than that.  A question for den-pressure.  What is keeping the higher pressure in check at sea level to keep it from “pressuring/venting” over into the lower pressure at altitude to keep it from trying to equalize. 

No different.

While round Earthers have a bunch of useless gravitational theories, the essence of flight is simply propulsion and lighter than air weight distribution. You are basically skimming along a layer of air that is denser than the plane, despite its rather significant weight. The proper name of a plane is an airship.

 My parents today are getting on a plane to the Caymans. I have zero doubts the plane will get them there, provided they do not miss a connection or get lost in the terminal.

All that curvature and gravity stuff is like spam,

hindering the proper understanding of how flight works with too much nonsense theory.

You don't need all that theory to fly. Just something sturdy enough to hold together at the amount of motion required for flight (why planes are usually made from metal), and light enough to not be what you'd call a brick (why that metal is usually not osmium).

No different.

While round Earthers have a bunch of useless gravitational theories, the essence of flight is simply propulsion and lighter than air weight distribution. You are basically skimming along a layer of air that is denser than the plane, despite its rather significant weight. The proper name of a plane is an airship.

 My parents today are getting on a plane to the Caymans. I have zero doubts the plane will get them there, provided they do not miss a connection or get lost in the terminal.

Might read this exchange…

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 27, 2023, 09:57:48 AM

Brian Cox visits the world's biggest vacuum | Human Universe - BBC

They don't. The video is a load of garbage and doctored.
There's no way that's a big so-called vacuum chamber. It's just complete and utter silliness.

Wow.  So you want to be taken serious.  You claim you are “scientific”.  Maybe you claimed to be open minded?   But a video documenting something easily researched.  Something many on a smaller scale have seen and participated in for themselves.  Because it doesn’t fit your world view.  Because it’s something that isn’t modeled/predicted by den-pressure.  You go right to, “They don't. The video is a load of garbage and doctored.
There's no way that's a big so-called vacuum chamber. It's just complete and utter silliness.”

I would label you hypocrite.  But it’s worse than that.  Many have considered the “science” of your delusion.  Have combated that delusion with real science, real world science examples, and cited sources.

After you claimed you are “scientific.”  Some evidence that contradicts you.  You just go.  ““They don't. The video is a load of garbage and doctored.”

And it’s sad.  You’re going to post like you still have credibility.  You have no credibility.  And it’s all on you.


———

Time and time again it’s proven FE earther’s like you who are here to troll, not all FE’s, are the ones with confirmation bias are the one’s with closed minds.

Anyway..

So.  You too are down to blatant falsehoods and lies. 


Added links








And that’s what trolls like you and sceptimatic are down to, blatant lies.  And you two ignoring actual evidence with you applying no scientific method.  You appeal to slander rather than science when faced with evidence there is gravity. 

While round Earthers have a bunch of useless gravitational theories, the essence of flight is simply propulsion and lighter than air weight distribution. You are basically skimming along a layer of air that is denser than the plane, despite its rather significant weight. The proper name of a plane is an airship.

Pure nonsense.
What REers have is a quite useful gravitational theory which can explain so much it isn't funny.

What you have is a bunch of useless vague claims which explain nothing.

Planes are much denser than the air.
Do you know what makes planes distinct from airships?
Airships are lighter than air. Because they have a large envelope which is filled with helium, their overall density is less than the air so the buoyant force from air will push them up. They control the density to control their altitude.
Another form uses hot air to make them lighter than air to float.
Planes on the other hand have a wing, a wing which generates an upwards force called lift. This lift opposes gravity to keep them up.

All that curvature and gravity stuff is like spam, hindering the proper understanding of how flight works with too much nonsense theory.

Why? Because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy? You have no understanding of how flight works.
If your nonsense was true, planes wouldn't have wings.

You don't need all that theory to fly. Just something sturdy enough to hold together at the amount of motion required for flight (why planes are usually made from metal), and light enough to not be what you'd call a brick (why that metal is usually not osmium).

Yeah, super simple stuff. Barely any training, theory involved. Pretty much anyone could do it...