Earth.

[wolfy 12]

 

Renton, on 08 Jul 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Many people have though, and they haven't mentioned this phenomenon of weighing less or inflating like a balloon.

I don't think I mentioned anyone inflating like a balloon. I said people would have to take in more air. They do this artificially using oxygen cannisters.

Edited July 8, 2014 by wolfy

[Renton 17876]

 

 

 

I don't think I mentioned anyone inflating like a balloon. I said people would have to take in more air. They do this artificially using oxygen cannisters.

Is denpressure the same as atmospheric pressure. Would you agree that can be easily measured?

[wolfy 12]

Is denpressure the same as atmospheric pressure. Would you agree that can be easily measured?

Denpressure is any dense matter pushing against atmospheric pressure or being pushed against. It can be measured by any scale. You see it everyday in some way, shape or form, from weighning yourself, to weighing sugar or a wagon on a scale, etc.

[Renton 17876]

So it's not the same as atmospheric pressure then, and can't be measured with a barometer. Instead it's measured with scales. But scales are altitude specific? Has this ever been shown?

 

What is the mechanism of this pressure, is it just air displacement? Surely something must be dragging the air down to create the force. Perhaps we could call this phenomenon gravity?

[luckyluke 1]

Sorry to interrupt here, but wolfy has more than established his credentials as a fucking idiot at this stage. Getting him to elaborate on his already stupid ideas with further made-up fuckwittery is a waste of everyone's time, including wolfy's.

 

Although admittedly wolfy's time is of very little value.

 

So yeah, let's stop.

Renton and Fish are giving that sort of sensible advice the same attention wolfy gives to questions on bets.

[The Fish 9064]

Wolfy, you've got to stop fabricating positions for you to argue against.

Edited July 8, 2014 by The Fish

[The Fish 9064]

Renton and Fish are giving that sort of sensible advice the same attention wolfy gives to questions on bets.

What can I say, it's a distraction from CTs food thread

[Meenzer 14112]

What can I say, it's a distraction from job-hunting

[wolfy 12]

So it's not the same as atmospheric pressure then, and can't be measured with a barometer. Instead it's measured with scales. But scales are altitude specific? Has this ever been shown?

 

What is the mechanism of this pressure, is it just air displacement? Surely something must be dragging the air down to create the force. Perhaps we could call this phenomenon gravity?

It is atmospheric pressure on any dense matter. Any matter placed into that atmospheric pressure, is acted upon by that pressure as is pushes against that pressure, no matter what it is and including a barometer.

For a barometer to work, a dense matter has to be placed against the atmosphere. For example: mercury is used in many cases because of it's ability to displace more atmospheric pressure without absorbtion, giving a more accurate reading of the pressure upon it, which is measured by a gauge. It's a scale measure not unlike any other man made scale measure, it's just done under varying densities of matter. No gravity involved at all.

[wolfy 12]

Wolfy, you've got to stop fabricating positions for you to argue against.

I can only say it as I see it.

[Renton 17876]

It is atmospheric pressure on any dense matter. Any matter placed into that atmospheric pressure, is acted upon by that pressure as is pushes against that pressure, no matter what it is and including a barometer.

For a barometer to work, a dense matter has to be placed against the atmosphere. For example: mercury is used in many cases because of it's ability to displace more atmospheric pressure without absorbtion, giving a more accurate reading of the pressure upon it, which is measured by a gauge. It's a scale measure not unlike any other man made scale measure, it's just done under varying densities of matter. No gravity involved at all.

Hmmm, not sure I get your theory wolfy, Occam's razor for me would be there simply to be an observable force pulling us down, something like, erm, gravity. That would also explain what air and water pressure is, and you would be able to use this knowledge for all kinds of engineering solutions.......

 

Anyway, back to your theory, remind me what happens to objects dropped in a vacuum chamber again? What's the mechanism?

[wolfy 12]

Hmmm, not sure I get your theory wolfy, Occam's razor for me would be there simply to be an observable force pulling us down, something like, erm, gravity. That would also explain what air and water pressure is, and you would be able to use this knowledge for all kinds of engineering solutions.......

 

Anyway, back to your theory, remind me what happens to objects dropped in a vacuum chamber again? What's the mechanism?

A vacuum chamber is the evacuation of air pressure. It's not a true vacuum. A true vacuum cannot be made on earth. You accept this, right?

 

Ok, so now we deal with objects dropped in a very low pressure chamber, of by now extremely more expanded molecules - not dense as in under normal atmospheric sea level conditions

In that chamber, before something is dropped, it has to be held up in that chamber. That takes energy, whether that's a clamp or whatever. Once dropped, it has very little resistance to stop the push of it's density through that expanded - and much less atmospheric friction, so naturally it will drop much faster.

 

For anything to fall, it first has to be pushed up by energy - an action. Once that energy ceases to be a push up energy (as in release of a clamp) then the density takes it's place back from where it came which is in the heavier part of the atmosphere, which happens to be the ground.

 

That's why the coin and feather works in the same environment of an evacuation chamber. The penny and the feather are under extreme low pressure as they are raised in the chamber ready for drop. Once they are both dropped, the penny and feather fall fairly close together to the deck. The penny still wins but it's tight.

The reason is simple: It's because a feather is designed to resist the air pressure under it by the spread of it's area but there is little air, so it simply falls back to where the energy pushed it from under very little resistance - which is the deck. Same as the penny.

No gravity involved. It's atmospheric pressure and density, in any form, as long as there is some pressure, which there always is, on Earth.

 

To understand it, people have to clear the gravity explanation from their minds, even if it's just for a short period, so they can grasp what I'm saying. Holding onto gravity will simply make people refuse to look at the simplicity of what I'm saying.

Earth science is made difficult for a reason. It's to stop people finding the true nature of it. I mean - let's face it - we are all caged in our own areas that we call streets for most of our lives. Even going to the pub or nighclub is just another box we go to.

the nearest we see of the Earth is from 35,000 feet from a plane window above clouds, then land at a destination to go into another box and then to the beach or whatever.

It appears like freedom but it's limited, isn't it. It's basically an open prison, where we get to see what we are allowed to see. Your passport dictates where you go, so how can we figure out what we are on?

Those big mountain top telescopes are the key to a lot of this stuff, in my opinion. It's ok looking through your tripod Newtonian and stuff but you're only seeing what you believe you're seeing by being told what it is.

 

Good luck viewing the sky from those telescopes on mountain tops, because they are owned and run by strict means. What is seen from those is probably what they know is up there in terms of the reality or close to it, rather than the bullshuit we are fed.

This is my honest opinion.

It's anyone's choice what they choose to think.

[jonasjuice 0]

[Renton 17876]

A vacuum chamber is the evacuation of air pressure. It's not a true vacuum. A true vacuum cannot be made on earth. You accept this, right?

 

Ok, so now we deal with objects dropped in a very low pressure chamber, of by now extremely more expanded molecules - not dense as in under normal atmospheric sea level conditions

In that chamber, before something is dropped, it has to be held up in that chamber. That takes energy, whether that's a clamp or whatever. Once dropped, it has very little resistance to stop the push of it's density through that expanded - and much less atmospheric friction, so naturally it will drop much faster.

 

For anything to fall, it first has to be pushed up by energy - an action. Once that energy ceases to be a push up energy (as in release of a clamp) then the density takes it's place back from where it came which is in the heavier part of the atmosphere, which happens to be the ground.

 

That's why the coin and feather works in the same environment of an evacuation chamber. The penny and the feather are under extreme low pressure as they are raised in the chamber ready for drop. Once they are both dropped, the penny and feather fall fairly close together to the deck. The penny still wins but it's tight.

The reason is simple: It's because a feather is designed to resist the air pressure under it by the spread of it's area but there is little air, so it simply falls back to where the energy pushed it from under very little resistance - which is the deck. Same as the penny.

No gravity involved. It's atmospheric pressure and density, in any form, as long as there is some pressure, which there always is, on Earth.

 

To understand it, people have to clear the gravity explanation from their minds, even if it's just for a short period, so they can grasp what I'm saying. Holding onto gravity will simply make people refuse to look at the simplicity of what I'm saying.

Earth science is made difficult for a reason. It's to stop people finding the true nature of it. I mean - let's face it - we are all caged in our own areas that we call streets for most of our lives. Even going to the pub or nighclub is just another box we go to.

the nearest we see of the Earth is from 35,000 feet from a plane window above clouds, then land at a destination to go into another box and then to the beach or whatever.

It appears like freedom but it's limited, isn't it. It's basically an open prison, where we get to see what we are allowed to see. Your passport dictates where you go, so how can we figure out what we are on?

Those big mountain top telescopes are the key to a lot of this stuff, in my opinion. It's ok looking through your tripod Newtonian and stuff but you're only seeing what you believe you're seeing by being told what it is.

 

Good luck viewing the sky from those telescopes on mountain tops, because they are owned and run by strict means. What is seen from those is probably what they know is up there in terms of the reality or close to it, rather than the bullshuit we are fed.

This is my honest opinion.

It's anyone's choice what they choose to think.

Well I've tried to understand but quite frankly you're talking gibberish. I think I'll just stick to what I know about physics, which makes perfect sense to me and actually works exactly as you'd expect it to. Maybe your just not explaining yourself very well, maybe I am too brainwashed or stupid to understand, or just maybe you are just wrong (i think you need to consider that possibility a bit more personally).

 

But, to change tack slightly, you have mentioned 'they' again, and included the whole professional astronomical fraternity on this (people with access to large telescopes). Who are these people and what's their motive for lying to us? Is Brian Cox an illuminati? Surely it's worth you speculating on this because it seems to be a recurring (paranoid) theme you have ongoing.

[Howay 12483]

Sorry to interrupt here, but wolfy has more than established his credentials as a fucking idiot at this stage. Getting him to elaborate on his already stupid ideas with further made-up fuckwittery is a waste of everyone's time, including wolfy's.

 

Although admittedly wolfy's time is of very little value.

 

So yeah, let's stop.

Aye, I thought he was just being a WUM at first and it was a laugh but the length of his posts man and the effort he's putting in make me worry he actually believes this utter nonsense. At this point I don't know what would be worse, if he believed this shite he has clearly just made up in his head or if he was a wum and was putting this much effort in.

[wolfy 12]

Renton, on 08 Jul 2014 - 3:11 PM, said:

Well I've tried to understand but quite frankly you're talking gibberish. I think I'll just stick to what I know about physics, which makes perfect sense to me and actually works exactly as you'd expect it to. Maybe your just not explaining yourself very well, maybe I am too brainwashed or stupid to understand, or just maybe you are just wrong (i think you need to consider that possibility a bit more personally).

 

But, to change tack slightly, you have mentioned 'they' again, and included the whole professional astronomical fraternity on this (people with access to large telescopes). Who are these people and what's their motive for lying to us? Is Brian Cox an illuminati? Surely it's worth you speculating on this because it seems to be a recurring (paranoid) theme you have ongoing.

If you give yourself time, maybe you will understand what I'm getting at. I don't expect anyone to simply just grasp it all and banish what they were told to the bin. I'm simply saying that it's worth exploring the possibility of things not being what we are told, even if it's just for clarity. Some people can do this and others outright refuse to and would rather stick to the model that's been pieced together over time.

Let's face it: it's easier to argue in favour of a model that has had all the trimmings added to it than to argue against it like I'm doing, because I can't just use google or wiki or whatever to counter- argue. I have to use what I've put together myself and argue against the model given out by taking it apart.

I always entertain the possibility that I'm wrong on a lot of stuff. There's stuff that I believe I'm 100% correct on. One of them is that gravity is made up. Just from this alone, it renders space exploits as fantasy and also renders the supposed planets as fantasy, which means they have to be something else, which they are. They are reflections of light from our very own Earth sun, not physical bodies just floating about in a vacuum.

 

Anyway: I'll try and address your questions on "professional" astronomers and "they."

 

First of all, we can look at the amount of scientists all over the world and decide that there's far too many of them for things not to be what's told. The problem is, most people assume that the world is full of astrophysicists or professional astronomers. I'd say they take up a small percentage of the Earth in numbers.

Amateur astronomers will be in abundance, ranging from, maybe yourself, to a young kid with his first telescope.

They can see all kinds of things flying about in the sky and assume they are what is told, as in large buring rocks/asteroids, meteors, etc. To them, that's it. All they need to do, is look. Same as looking at points of light against a dark sky.

All a telescope is - is a large magnifying glass. It's hardly going to bring what they believe is a star, any closer. Basically it's easy to fool people.

 

So what about the ones on the mountain tops? Well, it depends on how anyone wants to look at that. For me, they know whats what. Now when I say, "they" I mean the people who operate them. All you need is a bunch of people that value money more than truth and you have your spin in place.

It worked with Armstrong - although he did seem to carry a massive burden of guilt all his life. Maybe one man with a conscience that didn't quite get to spill his guts, except for a few cryptic messages.

 

So who are the real, "they"...?

The truth is, I don't know: but someone is running the show and it isn't government puppets. At a guess, I'd have to deduce that the people who feed the domesticated dogs, have full control over those dogs. So what could it mean?

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world. So who's in charge and who are "they"..?

 

It's up to how you interpret stuff and how trustworthy you believe official lines are, on any level.

 

Brian Cox: I believe - is just a paid puppet, just like many others. They are there to make sure that we all sit open mouthed at the mis-information they give out. That doesn't mean that Brian Cox is a liar, it could be that he's reading the scripts and assuming they are what they are.... Truth.

It's not easy to fathom all this stuff out as there's a minefield to step through with lot's of info givers that can scramble anyone's head and it's about who can decipher which one's are playing the game and those that are seeing through that game.

 

I don't know all of the answers to it all. I can only speculate, because I don't have any direct evidence, just as no one else has, except for those who really know what's what.

It doesn't stop a person making logical assumptions or piecing together potential realities from potential fabrications. The obstacle is - anyone doing that, is called a loner or a nut job by default.

[Renton 17876]

Yeah, there's a reason for that last sentence. You've managed to completely lose what was already a tenuous grip you had on reality wolfy. Out of interest, have you convinced a single person your theories have any merit? I know you say you don't care but if it was me who was genuinely paranoid about the world to the extent you are I'd want to have some support (or seek help).

[wolfy 12]

Yeah, there's a reason for that last sentence. You've managed to completely lose what was already a tenuous grip you had on reality wolfy. Out of interest, have you convinced a single person your theories have any merit? I know you say you don't care but if it was me who was genuinely paranoid about the world to the extent you are I'd want to have some support (or seek help).

If I was paranoid about the world I would probably seek help. If I wanted people to believe me so badly, I would be frustrated. I'm neither - in the way people want to think.

I'm simply questioning indoctrinated schooling in any shape or form, it doesn't mean I'm going to walk about with a loud speaker in a shopping centre proclaiming that the world is a lie.

I can go about my business exactly the same as anyone and think nothing of what I'm typing on a forum. It's a past-time for me like this football forum is for anyone who joins it or simply views it.

 

Just because I don't follow theoretical protocol, does not mean I go about life any different. It's how people percieve someone like me who questions stuff, as they have a image in their heads that I'm someone who sits in a pub spouting off that all is not what we think, so there - so stop believing it all.

 

Dismiss every single word if that's how you feel. You're not in any way forced to even give a second to what I say, even to think against what you believe you know.

All I'm doing is putting my thoughts into type for people to view and if it makes people think or they are interested, then fine. It makes for decent chat. It will be a pain for others, I suppose. Especially those that have absolutely no interest in any of this stuff and who can blame them. After all, we all have lives to live, so who wants to spend it by thinking like this when you can be out drinking or whatever.

The fact is, there's people on here all the time and all kinds of topics spring up that garner interest from some; that others won't go near. It's the nature of the beast.

[Renton 17876]

So that would be a no then, not one person other than yourself thinks your ideas have any merit? Denial of the existence of gravity is probably as extreme as it gets mind so I'm not surprised. It must be weird to live in wolfy world.

[wolfy 12]

Renton, on 08 Jul 2014 - 4:56 PM, said:Renton, on 08 Jul 2014 - 4:56 PM, said:

So that would be a no then, not one person other than yourself thinks your ideas have any merit? Denial of the existence of gravity is probably as extreme as it gets mind so I'm not surprised. It must be weird to live in wolfy world.

I can explain and have explained what gravity is. You have not been explained to by mainstream science as to what it is, yet you accept it.

The only reason gravity stays as a force, even an unknown one, is because people like to believe in space. Lose gravity and you lose space. The star trek fans wouldn't be happy.

Edited July 8, 2014 by wolfy

[Ken 119]

Sorry to interrupt here, but wolfy has more than established his credentials as a fucking idiot at this stage. Getting him to elaborate on his already stupid ideas with further made-up fuckwittery is a waste of everyone's time, including wolfy's.

 

Although admittedly wolfy's time is of very little value.

 

So yeah, let's stop.

Wolfy has tried. He has better credentials than some others who post absolute rubbish without substance and don't attempt to defend their stance. Difference is Wolfy takes care but his arguments don't hold up scientifically. 10/10 for sencerity though. Fuck you make such an effort.

[Renton 17876]

I can explain and have explained what gravity is. You have not been explained to by mainstream science as to what it is, yet you accept it.

The only reason gravity stays as a force, even an unknown one, is because people like to believe in space. Lose gravity and you lose space. The star trek fans wouldn't be happy.

It's true gravity is the least understood of the four fundamental forces, because it's so weak comparatively. Science isn't a finished project though, and understanding will come.

 

The physical effects of gravity are simply undeniable to any reasonable person though. It's ridiculous to believe planes could fly using the theory of denpessure, as an obvious example. Do you really think the engineers at Airbus or Boeing don't account for gravity?

Edited July 8, 2014 by Renton

[Renton 17876]

Wolfy has tried. He has better credentials than some others who post absolute rubbish without substance and don't attempt to defend their stance. Difference is Wolfy takes care but his arguments don't hold up scientifically. 10/10 for sencerity though. Fuck you make such an effort.

Better credentials than who? Not only does this guy not believe in gravity, he believes what is probably the most widely witnessed and filmed news event of all time (9/11) simply didn't happen. Figure those credentials out.

[wolfy 12]

It's true gravity is the least understood of the four fundamental forces, because it's so weak comparatively. Science isn't a finished project though, and understanding will come.

 

The physical effects if gravity are simply undeniable to any reasonable perso

If gravity isn't understood, then how did they manage the moon landings? It's easy to just say they are not understood, yet they appear to absolutely know how gravity works on everything. It's a scientific cop out by them. And to say it's an unfinished project should tell anyone the reason why. It's because it isn't what we are told it is. It's made up to account for space.

There's nothing anyone can hit me with about gravity that I can't explain by atmospheric pressure, unless they use the pretence of space.

 

The thing is, it's about logically looking at it and seeing the reasons for the simplicity, that they are.

If gravity is so weak on a rotating ball, then why is it holding all the oceans and all of us, plus buildings? If it's so weak, then why can the piddly moon with 1/6th of the not fully understood gravity pull at the oceans?

 

You are being told lies, in my opinion. It's dis-info to cover up the reality of what is happening - and that is, gravity is actually atmospheric pressure and the Earth is not a 1000 + mph rotating globe.

Think about it all. I mean, why the hell should Earth rotate on a 23.5 degree angle around a so called sun? It makes no sense, because it's all made to fit a lie.

Look at it all with a critical mind and you will see that it's a big bunch of fantasy made up science to make us all believe we know what the entirety of our Earth is, when it's likely we don't even know the half of it.

[Renton 17876]

If gravity isn't understood, then how did they manage the moon landings? It's easy to just say they are not understood, yet they appear to absolutely know how gravity works on everything. It's a scientific cop out by them. And to say it's an unfinished project should tell anyone the reason why. It's because it isn't what we are told it is. It's made up to account for space.

There's nothing anyone can hit me with about gravity that I can't explain by atmospheric pressure, unless they use the pretence of space.

 

The thing is, it's about logically looking at it and seeing the reasons for the simplicity, that they are.

If gravity is so weak on a rotating ball, then why is it holding all the oceans and all of us, plus buildings? If it's so weak, then why can the piddly moon with 1/6th of the not fully understood gravity pull at the oceans?

 

You are being told lies, in my opinion. It's dis-info to cover up the reality of what is happening - and that is, gravity is actually atmospheric pressure and the Earth is not a 1000 + mph rotating globe.

Think about it all. I mean, why the hell should Earth rotate on a 23.5 degree angle around a so called sun? It makes no sense, because it's all made to fit a lie.

Look at it all with a critical mind and you will see that it's a big bunch of fantasy made up science to make us all believe we know what the entirety of our Earth is, when it's likely we don't even know the half of it.

The effects of gravity have been understood since Newton. They're entirely predictable and have allowed the development of virtually every modern engineering project you now take for granted, right down to how your house is built. I'm sorry, but only an idiot wouldn't understand this.

 

The mechanism of gravity is much less understood and yes, compared to the other 3 forces, it's effect is very weak, being only apparent in bodies with large masses (typically astronomical in nature). Science is entirely open about the uncertainty, I don't see what your problem is here. After all 'they' could easily have invented a mechanism couldn't they, like you think they have for the weak nuclear force (another classic example of wolfy denial).

 

You can't explain anything with denpressure. It's gibberish and not one sane person would accept it. In fact even flat earthers aren't impressed.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Renton