Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

You said no flow came out of the vessel it does i proved this you are wrong yet again. And instead of admitting it you make up more idiotic crap which is utterly wrong. Moron

No I didn't.
You're getting nowhere offering that.

Ok so what is causing the crushing force?

Atmospheric stacking.
Just like the sea causes a crushing force on you when you are in it, along with the atmosphere above.

 

[legend7]

I left reading this thread page 435 thinking that will be the end of it. I was wrong there's another 64 pages. Bloody hell.

Oh mate there have been many new discoveries from our resident genius.

So is light sound or not? I know it is clearly not in the real world but in your unique universe, I'm struggling to understand.

And if they are the same in his world at what point does sound become light and therefore go from having a speed to being "instant"?

 

[taipeisafc]

No I didn't.
You're getting nowhere offering that.

Atmospheric stacking.
Just like the sea causes a crushing force on you when you are in it, along with the atmosphere above.

So showing a measured pressure in a fixed vessel along with two independent flows out from that vessel through a vacuum pump(two calibrated flowmeters using different technologies) doesnt prove that when you have a vaccuum pump you have a a suction flow. Are you really this stupid or are you finally going to admit to trolling.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No, I'm not understanding because of my mindset. That is a lovely cop out phrase to dismiss any challenge.

I'm not dismissing any challenge.
I'm counteracting it.

It is because you are talking nonsense, badly stringing words together. And at the end of the day, you have no proof of this.

Then don't take me on.

Can you prove that sound and light are effectively the same thing?

Yes but the primitive way it can be proved will be laughed off because you prefer to go and look up the gobbledygook as your explanation which you cannot ever prove and is perfect for those that offer it because that way it can never be contested.

Now consider this. Light is a transverse wave, not a longitudinal wave the same as sound (which is caused by varying pressure).

No it's not.

You can't polarise a longitudinal wave, polarisation has no meaning in that context, yet polarised light is talked about a lot. It should at least be familiar to people in the context of sun glasses. That is using a grating to filter out the direction of some of the waves of light, leaving light all of that direction. If you apply two polarisation filters at right angles (a real right angle) to each other then despite each one being see through, together they block all light. See:

It's called blocking out reflected light through waves.
You can call it absorption or reflection depending on the blocking offered, as in sun glasses.
It's not the light itself it's the waves the light is reflected through.

Logon or register to see this image

This could not happen with what is essentially a wave of varying compressed air.

Yes it can if you look upon the atmosphere itself as layered and stacked and compressed in stages of varying pressures which is why the waves work in variations through the atmosphere at arcs of varying peaks, some indistinguishable from straight but some visible.

So many of the things that you just seem to have made up (this light has no wavelength of frequency seems new) seem to have no basis and are just easily disproved.

It's absolutely not easily disproved but it can be argued against with this particle/wave duality offering and what not.

Mostly with school level physics.

Anything can be disproved with school level physics if people are told one thing to follow whilst discarding or not being allowed to see alternates.
So easy to do and school people.

I remember discovering the effects with a couple of broken calculators I took apart, probably when I was 11 or 12. LCD screens have a polarised filter on them and I noticed that as I turned two pressed together they went black. Not sure why I did that, but it felt like magic. The above diagram shows why.

You do amazing things.

So showing a measured pressure in a fixed vessel along with two independent flows out from that vessel through a vacuum pump(two calibrated flowmeters using different technologies) doesnt prove that when you have a vaccuum pump you have a a suction flow. Are you really this stupid or are you finally going to admit to trolling.

No matter how you try to dress it up you will never ever ever get a suction flow.
It cannot happen and you could understand why if you took a step aside the official lines.

 

[taipeisafc]

I'm not dismissing any challenge.
I'm counteracting it.

Then don't take me on.

Yes but the primitive way it can be proved will be laughed off because you prefer to go and look up the gobbledygook as your explanation which you cannot ever prove and is perfect for those that offer it because that way it can never be contested.

No it's not.


It's called blocking out reflected light through waves.
You can call it absorption or reflection depending on the blocking offered, as in sun glasses.
It's not the light itself it's the waves the light is reflected through.

Yes it can if you look upon the atmosphere itself as layered and stacked and compressed in stages of varying pressures which is why the waves work in variations through the atmosphere at arcs of varying peaks, some indistinguishable from straight but some visible.


It's absolutely not easily disproved but it can be argued against with this particle/wave duality offering and what not.


Anything can be disproved with school level physics if people are told one thing to follow whilst discarding or not being allowed to see alternates.
So easy to do and school people.


You do amazing things.

No matter how you try to dress it up you will never ever ever get a suction flow.
It cannot happen and you could understand why if you took a step aside the official lines.

So i am lying then? Go on be a man and say what you think. You are yet again talking utter shit. I have 100% proven you get a flow through a vaccum pump and you still spout erroneous drivel and lies with no basis. And you are too weak to even admit when you are wrong. And where is your proof there is no suction flow?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So i am lying then?

I'm not interested in arguing for or against whether you're telling truth's or lies.
If you believe what you're doing is your truth then I have no argument with you on that.
I think you are mistaken in your belief but that's just my opinion just like it is your opinion to call me wrong and a moron and whatnot.

It's all about opinions.

Go on be a man and say what you think.

I always will, man or moron.

You are yet again talking utter shit.

And you're welcome to that. That's the beauty about opinions.

I have 100% proven you get a flow through a vaccum pump and you still spout erroneous drivel and lies with no basis.

I have no issues with getting a flow through a pump. It's how it happens is the key and I've told you my side. You don't agree and that's absolutely fine. I wouldn't expect you to.

And you are too weak to even admit when you are wrong.

I'll definitely admit when I'm wrong if it can be proved so. Maybe you would do so if you were wrong....right?

And where is your proof there is no suction flow?

There is none for you. I can offer you plenty of stuff to offer your mind but I know it would be pointless.

If you can name me one way where suck can be verified and nailed on I'll concede.
But don't expect an easy ride and be prepared to put your mind to it.

 

[TheDataGuy]

Atmospheric stacking.
Just like the sea causes a crushing force on you when you are in it, along with the atmosphere above.

So what about objects in a sealed box? There is a set amount of atmosphere in the box.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So what about objects in a sealed box? There is a set amount of atmosphere in the box.

Are you going with a perfect sealed box with a perfect object like a sphere inside of it?
Are you trying to offer up some equalisation that cannot offer a push in one direction?

If so you have to offer that very same box into an environment that also offers no stacked layers. Any ideas?

 

[taipeisafc]

I'm not interested in arguing for or against whether you're telling truth's or lies.
If you believe what you're doing is your truth then I have no argument with you on that.
I think you are mistaken in your belief but that's just my opinion just like it is your opinion to call me wrong and a moron and whatnot.

It's all about opinions.

I always will, man or moron.

And you're welcome to that. That's the beauty about opinions.

I have no issues with getting a flow through a pump. It's how it happens is the key and I've told you my side. You don't agree and that's absolutely fine. I wouldn't expect you to.

I'll definitely admit when I'm wrong if it can be proved so. Maybe you would do so if you were wrong....right?

There is none for you. I can offer you plenty of stuff to offer your mind but I know it would be pointless.

If you can name me one way where suck can be verified and nailed on I'll concede.
But don't expect an easy ride and be prepared to put your mind to it.

Prove it then, go on i dare you. I have already proven gas is sucked from a vessel.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Prove it then, go on i dare you. I have already proven gas is sucked from a vessel.

You've proved nothing of the sort.

 

[TheDataGuy]

Are you going with a perfect sealed box with a perfect object like a sphere inside of it?
Are you trying to offer up some equalisation that cannot offer a push in one direction?

If so you have to offer that very same box into an environment that also offers no stacked layers. Any ideas?

So in a box 1m x 1m x 1m how may layers would we expect? How to we prove this?

 

[DaveH]

I'm not dismissing any challenge.
I'm counteracting it.

Then don't take me on.

Yes but the primitive way it can be proved will be laughed off because you prefer to go and look up the gobbledygook as your explanation which you cannot ever prove and is perfect for those that offer it because that way it can never be contested.

No it's not.


It's called blocking out reflected light through waves.
You can call it absorption or reflection depending on the blocking offered, as in sun glasses.
It's not the light itself it's the waves the light is reflected through.

Yes it can if you look upon the atmosphere itself as layered and stacked and compressed in stages of varying pressures which is why the waves work in variations through the atmosphere at arcs of varying peaks, some indistinguishable from straight but some visible.


It's absolutely not easily disproved but it can be argued against with this particle/wave duality offering and what not.


Anything can be disproved with school level physics if people are told one thing to follow whilst discarding or not being allowed to see alternates.
So easy to do and school people.


You do amazing things.

No matter how you try to dress it up you will never ever ever get a suction flow.
It cannot happen and you could understand why if you took a step aside the official lines.

Go on then, show us the primitive way that light is sound but light doesn't travel. I would really like to know.

 

[taipeisafc]

You've proved nothing of the sort.

Yes i did. You can go back look at my posts the proof is there. So your proof now moron.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So in a box 1m x 1m x 1m how may layers would we expect? How to we prove this?

Millions, maybe.

Go on then, show us the primitive way that light is sound but light doesn't travel. I would really like to know.

Start off rubbing a stick against stone and tell me what happens.

Yes i did. You can go back look at my posts the proof is there. So your proof now moron.

You proved absolutely nothing.
If you want to show me how suck works then explain something simple to show it.

 

[payne]

It's nuts how people cam perform actual experiments and show the workings and he just rejects it no matter what.

He only offers facts about how science is all fake. He invents a new world but won't share.

Perfectly reasonable.

How can anyone rational be this way?

 

[TheDataGuy]

Millions, maybe.

Ok, let's go back to the water analogy analogy. Why does an object sink? If I place a rock on top of water there is no water above it so it should float.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Ok, let's go back to the water analogy analogy. Why does an object sink? If I place a rock on top of water there is no water above it so it should float.

No it shouldn't. This is why the atmosphere is crucial.
The water is a foundation to the atmosphere just as ground is.
The difference is in the dense make up of water against the dense make up of the ground.

Your rock has a lot of structural make up for it's dense mass against atmosphere.
Basically it uses the water as its foundation as it displaces atmosphere, minus volume (crucial) within it's structure.
If the atmospheric displacement is more than what the foundation is the rock will be pushed down by it's own resistance of dense mass against that atmosphere and the water will not fully hold it but will resist it and be overcome, meaning the rock sinks.

 

[payne]

No it shouldn't. This is why the atmosphere is crucial.
The water is a foundation to the atmosphere just as ground is.
The difference is in the dense make up of water against the dense make up of the ground.

Your rock has a lot of structural make up for it's dense mass against atmosphere.
Basically it uses the water as its foundation as it displaces atmosphere, minus volume (crucial) within it's structure.
If the atmospheric displacement is more than what the foundation is the rock will be pushed down by it's own resistance of dense mass against that atmosphere and the water will not fully hold it but will resist it and be overcome, meaning the rock sinks.

I like the crucial bit in brackets. It's like a buzz word a snake oild salesman would sling in a sentence.

 

[Nobby]

It's almost as if he believed dense mass was actually a thing

 

[TheDataGuy]

No it shouldn't. This is why the atmosphere is crucial.
The water is a foundation to the atmosphere just as ground is.
The difference is in the dense make up of water against the dense make up of the ground.

Your rock has a lot of structural make up for it's dense mass against atmosphere.
Basically it uses the water as its foundation as it displaces atmosphere, minus volume (crucial) within it's structure.
If the atmospheric displacement is more than what the foundation is the rock will be pushed down by it's own resistance of dense mass against that atmosphere and the water will not fully hold it but will resist it and be overcome, meaning the rock sinks.

But what is the force that is pushing it down in the first place? If I slide the rock from the ground to the surface of the water I have not given it any potential energy, and (crucially) energy can't be created from nothing so it should stay on top of the water. That is unless there is some other force at play here?