Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 06-18-2019, 12:08 AM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
I see.

The it in your statement above is referring to a vacuum that would exists inside of an imagined vacuum vehicle.
Correct, it refers to a vacuum. In this case a vacuum balloon concept as originated in 1670.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post


What would keep the vacuum from collapsing the containers?

For example:



It seems to me that a helium balloon would be far more efficient at lifting a vehicle rather than a vacuum vehicle.
Yea, I've seen that video. Impressive huh? However, what's the vacuum? How many Bar and you have realize it's not meant to be subjected to a vacuum; just the opposite. Let's see this repeated on a submarine hull and then you've got something worthwhile to take note of.
https://vacaero.com/information-reso...ent-units.html
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/v...ter-d_460.html
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/v...ent-d_836.html

There's nothing wrong with the concept of a vacuum based air/antigravity ship, it's just that it has never been possible because up till recently there's never been a material that's both light enough and yet strong enough to construct a vacuum based anti-gravity ship or balloon upon. Evidently this is changing. I don't have any idea what materials would be best. I haven't researched any of it but I'm guessing an aerogel might be one suitable material to make a brick like hollow ball out of.

Take a look see through the website that features the posted design. They say that they have run computer simulations proving their concept. I saw no mention of what materials they would be using however we can speculate and maybe it is an aerogel brick that they are basing the concept upon. That would be logical based on what little I know about aerogels; which is very little. This idea that the material might be an aerogel is something I put out for consideration and for others to dig round on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
Whereas..

The it that I was referring to is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

See:




Can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container?





Cheers!


First of all: This Problem.

If you think that Einsteinian Physics is right then an Electric Universe cannot be right. If you think an Electric Universe is right then an Einstenian Universe cannot be right. What you believe is going to determine what you think is possible, but remember that all knowledge is fluid.

In an Electric/Magnetic Universe the weight of a mass is determined by induction of energy, and that works along with a set of variables, but which for the sake of simplicity we can simply say that; the rate of induction of energies from counterspace, and the material in question both combine to form a magnetic field in matter.

Since the planet is itself magnetic that would mean that the core has no magnetic field, as it is a bloch wall, and hence no gravity would exist at the core either; this is a near inverse of Einsteinian Theory. Such a realization would mean that a molten core, if there is a molten core, would require another explanation.

In an Einsteinian Universe we have the pot hole theory of mass density where density is innate to matter itself, causes space to bend into a pit, and under the same logic is the reason mass falls inwards upon other mass, and which according to Einsteinian Physics is what produces gravity. More, when mass is piled upon itself it will create increasing mass density by compaction, hence pressure, until such time as the core becomes molten. Under this model a molten core of iron resides at the core of planet earth due to the mass density over and above the core.


Earth constantly loses it's atmosphere to space. How then is this replenished? The Electric Universe model proposes that most of the matter produced at the planetary core is gas, and which is hydrogen and oxygen, in other words it mainly produces water as a byproduct of a fusion reaction. The core is not kept molten by density of increasing mass piled upon itself since the core is without gravity because it is magnetic, and so the core is a bloch wall, and would be the point whereby counterspace is exiting back to and coming into existence.

What then keeps the atmosphere attached to Earth? Is it gravity or is it an induction and hence magnetism?
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 06-18-2019 at 12:21 AM.
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #92  
Old 06-18-2019, 05:56 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
There's nothing wrong with the concept of a vacuum based air/antigravity ship
I disagree. There are several things wrong with a vacuum based aircraft, but I'll only mention one.

If the video of a vacuum holding rail tank car imploding from air pressure, with said tank rail car being made of steel, doesn't show you what's wrong with the concept of a vacuum vehicle, then I don't know what will.

I'm going to quote a video I watched about why a vacuum vehicle won't work. While I don't agree with everything the video says, I do agree with the following quote:

WITH RESPECT TO A VACUUM VEHICLE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by S1Uex7KK_x4
In any case, if built, it wouldnít have flown, as the problem with a vacuum airship
03:25
isnít its hypothetical buoyancy but the pressure itself.
03:29
The pressure that causes an airship to fly can also crush it
03:33
standard atmospheric pressure is just over one hundred thousand Pascal
03:37
the equivalent of almost six and a half tesla model 3ís sitting on every square meter of hull.
03:42
A modern blimp resists this pressure, and maintains its shape
03:46
due to the outward pressure of the lifting gas balancing this force from the atmosphere.
03:50
But a vacuum airship has no such benefit, and must resist this pressure only through structural integrity.
03:56
While itís possible to construct an object that can withstand these forces
04:00
the weight margins on an airship are incredibly tight. The density of hydrogen is just 7% that of air
04:07
so in order to be functionally equivalent to the hydrogen filled airships of the past
04:11
the unloaded weight of a Vacuum airship cannot be increased by even 20%
04:17
beyond that of the fabric covered body of the old airships.
04:20
This, so far hasnít been achieved
04:22
and no homogeneous material can even theoretically achieve both the strength and weight requirements.
Talking about this imagined vacuum vehicle is red herring.

A red herring is a statement or a position that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.

The important questions is, "Can you have air pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the air (gas) to press upon?"

Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID

Last edited by vidbid; 06-18-2019 at 06:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-18-2019, 06:15 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
What then keeps the atmosphere attached to Earth?
That's begging the question.

The question presupposes that Earth is a ball.

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself. (per Google)

Refer to Boyle's Law and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Newtonian gravity is pseudoscience.

Einsteinian gravity is pseudoscience.

Think in terms of relative density equilibrium and non-equilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_density

Go to https://nathanoakley.com/ to get your education.

Learn about the Scientific Method.

Learn about logical fallacies.

Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-18-2019, 07:12 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation Relative Density Equilibrium

The image is of a 5-Tube Galileo Thermometer



You have a certain amount of a liquid sealed in a vile within a tube filled with liquid.

You can not increase the amount of liquid sealed in a vile.

What then causes the vile to rise or lower?

How does an increase in temperature affect the liquid in the vile?

Does not the relative density of each vile changes with temperature?

What comprises the mass, density and volume of each vile?

1. Glass vile.

2. Liquid in glass vile.

3. Gas in glass vile.

4. Metal temperature tag, which displays the current air temperature.

which is density-relative to

the liquid that the vile is in.

The temperature is the independent variable.

How do you control temperature?

Easy. Turn on a space heater, for one.

Relative Density Equilibrium
Attached Images
File Type: jpg thermometer.jpg (84.6 KB, 60 views)
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID

Last edited by vidbid; 06-18-2019 at 07:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-18-2019, 07:28 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation

Stop listening to liars.



Use the Scientific Method.

Understand logical fallacies.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg liars1.jpg (41.4 KB, 64 views)
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-18-2019, 04:48 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Question Science versus Pseudoscience

Questions:

1. How can you have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure?

2. How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/...20Pressure.mp4
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-18-2019, 05:46 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
I disagree. There are several things wrong with a vacuum based aircraft, but I'll only mention one.

If the video of a vacuum holding rail tank car imploding from air pressure, with said tank rail car being made of steel, doesn't show you what's wrong with the concept of a vacuum vehicle, then I don't know what will.

I'm going to quote a video I watched about why a vacuum vehicle won't work. While I don't agree with everything the video says, I do agree with the following quote:

WITH RESPECT TO A VACUUM VEHICLE:


Talking about this imagined vacuum vehicle is red herring.

A red herring is a statement or a position that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.

The important questions is, "Can you have air pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the air (gas) to press upon?"

Cheers
Now then, first off I have an idea that I think I understand why you're focused on this idea about whether or not you need a tin can to contain air to produce pressure, but what's important is what we think might be possible, and so while you've been focused on this I'm trying to take you somewhere else as well.

There is no physical container around planet Earth and we have air pressure. The question of "can you have air pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the air" is leading and misstates what's important. There is no can/container over the planet and we have air pressure so obviously you do not need a container, and so the important question is how is this possible?

So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?

That is why I went to good deal of trouble to outline the dynamic difference between an Einsteinian Universe and an Electric Universe. The reason for asking is what you believe will determine what you believe keeps the atmosphere intact to our own planet, and as a result will further predict other variables.

One view creates impossibilities whereby nature cannot be manipulated while the other offers the potential to manipulate and or replicate the effects of nature. For example, one cannot create an artificial air pressure if what's required is an Einsteinian gravity system whereby air has weight and thus is falling inwards with all other mass. In other words, air pressure under this system is ultimately a matter of gravity and happens because of mass.

An Electric Universe model greatly changes what's possible. Under that model the atmosphere is composed of charged air molecules which are dynamic and moving with variable pressures. Therefore discussing the possibility of a vacuum ship is not a Red Herring. Aren't we just discussing the possible? I don't think discussing a vacuum ship is a red herring. It is an antigravity thread right?

A vacuum ship is pure engineering like a skyscraper is a building. The design called for sphere's laid up with bricks of very light but strong material, and perhaps those bricks could be hollow carbon fiber blocks or perhaps ones made from an aerogel.

I'm not a materials engineer but there's sure to be some lurking about on this forum.
Aerogel.org Ľ What is Aerogel?

The supposed reason that a vacuum balloon type of ship hasn't been built, so far as we know, is that we didn't have materials strong enough and yet light enough. That's not true any longer. Carbon fiber is stronger than steel. We can make hollow blocks out of that a whole lot easier and which would be vastly lighter.

Your video of a tanker car being crushed shows the power that a vacuum can produce. It doesn't show how to resist pressure since a tanker is meant to carry liquids. That's a completely opposite engineering problem. There's no internal framing in a tanker car. It's a giant beer can for all intense and purposes.

Submarine Hull
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attac...hull-photo.jpg

Obviously submarines can implode, as happened to the U.S.S. Thresher, and so there is a crush depth for most submarines as well.

https://shellbuckling.com/presentati.../page_163.html

Meanwhile technology changes the possible.
https://manufacturingstories.com/the...sider-youtube/

Navy 3D Prints First Submersible Hull
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 06-18-2019 at 06:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-18-2019, 06:09 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
Questions:

1. How can you have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure?

2. How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/...20Pressure.mp4
A fireworks to space system requires the money of Elon Musk. Notice that the Musk fireworks to space hasn't produced anything for over a decade. That ancient rockets to space system is never going to do anything and is stupid too boot. Figure out how to get in space yourself is the answer; find out what truth is first hand.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-18-2019, 06:13 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?
That's your question.

That's not my question.

I never asked that question.

On the other hand, your question presupposes that pressure is maintained without a container.

However, in fact, pressure can't be maintained without a container.

See Boyle's Law

See Second Law of Thermodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?
That's begging the question. It's a logical fallacy. I've already explain what a begging the question fallacy is.

My question is, "How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

The definition of antecedent here is "a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another." (per Google)

Refer to: https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/...20Pressure.mp4

Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID

Last edited by vidbid; 06-18-2019 at 06:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-18-2019, 06:28 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Be aware of logical fallacies.

Be on the look out for logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

1. If A, then B.
For example, "If I have the (A)flu, then I'll have a (B)fever."

Affirming the consequent would be:

2. B. Therefore, A.

For example, "I have a (B)fever; therefore, I have the (A)flu.



Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 06-18-2019, 08:54 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post

My question is, "How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"
See:
8-4 Pressure Due to Weight of a Liquid
8-5 Pressure in a Confined Liquid
8-6 Atmospheric Pressure
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...xt=physicskatz

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-conte...planations.pdf

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-18-2019, 08:59 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 866
So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
That's your question.

That's not my question.

I never asked that question.
Correct but I'm leading you with the statement, and in fact I actually boldly stated there was no container, a highly dubious position no? I'm doing that on purpose because neither you nor I can see the container. It's therefore manifestly obvious that no container exists: Correct? Thermodynamics must therefore be bunk right?


Now look see here; I attempted to pin down whether you're an Einsteinian, or an Electric Universal believer; or perhaps you're like myself and are a Wheeler fractalist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
On the other hand, your question presupposes that pressure is maintained without a container.
In fact I even went so far as to plainly state as much; I said that it is maintained without a container. Container presupposes a tin can. So if that is not the case, and it isn't, then define what you mean by container?

Reason being I already gave two existing explanations which could explain pressure without a tin can; hence no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

Evidently you do not like either of these concepts?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
However, in fact, pressure can't be maintained without a container.
Therefore we have an invisible container; yes?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
See Boyle's Law

See Second Law of Thermodynamics
Agreed, and there are no violations of the laws of thermodynamics with the models provided under Einstein, the Electric Universe, or Wheeler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
That's begging the question. It's a logical fallacy. I've already explain what a begging the question fallacy is.
Not really vidbid, clarify what you believe because either there is, or there is not, a metal container which domes the planet. If not then we have existing explanations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
My question is, "How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

The definition of antecedent here is "a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another." (per Google)

Refer to: https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/...20Pressure.mp4

Cheers
Under Einsteinian Physics pressure is a product of gravity because air has mass and accelerates towards the Earth's Core together with all other mass due to pothole theory of warped space.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 06-18-2019 at 09:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:27 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
See:
8-4 Pressure Due to Weight of a Liquid
8-5 Pressure in a Confined Liquid
8-6 Atmospheric Pressure
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...xt=physicskatz
Yes, well convention isn't always what it's made out to be

Ultimately, pressure is produced by inertial acceleration since mass weight is a result of the induction of energies passing through matter. Typically when it is in an EM field. Weight is as much an illusion as density is to weight. An object may be dense and yet have no weight in the right environment. Density has no real relationship to weight that we are currently aware of. However we might later find there is some cross correlation between density and induction of energies: That would make logical sense.



Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
Well, not too sure about the intelligence part, because it is the object of mind control to produce a seeming lack of intelligence.
Derren Brown: The Assassin with Stephen Fry FULL EPISODE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owootTAuxic
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 06-18-2019 at 09:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:30 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?
Not my question.

My question is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Refer to Boyle's Law

Refer to the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The use of term "can" or "tin can" is a red herring, a logical fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Correct but I'm leading you with the statement, and in fact I actually boldly stated there was no container, a highly dubious position no? I'm doing that on purpose because neither you nor I can see the container.
1. Denying the antecedent.

2. Ipse dixit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
It's therefore manifestly obvious that no container exists: Correct?
1. Ipse dixit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Thermodynamics must therefore be bunk right?
1. Ipse dixit.

Straw man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Now look see here; I attempted to pin down whether you're an Einsteinian, or an Electric Universal believer; or perhaps you're like myself and are a Wheeler fractalist.
1. Straw man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
In fact I even went so far as to plainly state as much; I said that it is maintained without a container.
1. Ipse dixit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Container presupposes a tin can. So if that is not the case, and it isn't, then define what you mean by container?
1. The use of term "can" or "tin can" is a red herring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Reason being I already gave two existing explanations which could explain pressure without a tin can; hence no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
1. The use of term "can" or "tin can" is a red herring.

See Second Law of Thermodynamics and Boyle's Law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Evidently you do not like either of these concepts?
1. Straw man.

2. Red herring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Therefore we have an invisible container; yes?
"Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Agreed, and there are no violations of the laws of thermodynamics with the models provided under Einstein, the Electric Universe, or Wheeler.
1. Affirming the consequent.

2. Red herring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Not really vidbid, clarify what you believe because there either there is, or there is not, a metal container which domes the planet. If not then we have existing explanations.
1. Affirming the consequent.

2. Red herring.

"Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Under Einsteinian Physics pressure is a product of gravity because air has mass and accelerates towards the Earth's Core together with all other mass due to pothole theory of warped space.
1. Affirming the consequent.

2. Red herring.

3. Straw man.

"Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:38 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
See:
8-4 Pressure Due to Weight of a Liquid
8-5 Pressure in a Confined Liquid
8-6 Atmospheric Pressure
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...xt=physicskatz

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-conte...planations.pdf

Al
Pressure in a gas is not exactly the same as pressure in a liquid, and vice versa.

See Boyle's Law

See Second Law of Thermodynamics

https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/...20Pressure.mp4
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:40 AM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
My question is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"
You need to explain why you're asking this and explain the point of the laws you refer to. You cannot just state something and hope the reader follows your intention. What you're doing is not helping to explain: It is not self explanatory as you seem to assume.

Denying the antecedent, affirming the consequentant, and Ipse dixit are insulting and weasel words: If you do not want to honestly and openly discuss the topic you shouldn't have started a thread on it.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 06-19-2019 at 07:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-19-2019, 02:16 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
You need to explain why you're asking this and explain the point of the laws you refer to.
What are you talking about?

Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
You cannot just state something and hope the reader follows your intention.
Anybody can state anything.

I'm not hoping for anything.

Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
What you're doing is not helping to explain:
Do you not have access to information?

I'm not under any obligation to discipline you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
It is not self explanatory as you seem to assume.
That's not my problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Denying the antecedent, affirming the consequentant, and Ipse dixit are insulting and weasel words:
Not insults.

Not weasel words.

Logical fallacies.

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.

Affirming the consequent is the action of taking a true statement and invalidly concluding its converse . The name affirming the consequent derives from using the consequent, Q, of , to conclude the antecedent P.

Ipse dixit is an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion. The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
If you do not want to honestly and openly discuss the topic you shouldn't have started a thread on it.
1. Ipse dixit

2. Straw man

Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

Or do you concede that you can't answer the question?

If you need help with your arguments, refer to

Flat Earth Debate 876 **LIVE** - YouTube



Code:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBUChLeeNtA
Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID

Last edited by vidbid; 06-19-2019 at 03:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-19-2019, 03:45 PM
spacecase0's Avatar
spacecase0 spacecase0 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 461
are you all talking about gravity being the container for the atmosphere ?
and that is proof that the earth is round ?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:58 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecase0 View Post
are you all talking about gravity being the container for the atmosphere ?
and that is proof that the earth is round ?
I asked aljhoa to repost the Vacuum Ship info on the ARV thread Spacecase. I'm want to discuss antigravitic ideas which is obviously not what vidbid is interested in doing. I have no idea what his interest is and he has no intention of explaining what they are either: As near as I can tell he thinks there's a metal dome over the planet and that's why there is air pressure. Further, it is evidently too much work for him to even bother to explain what he thinks about theories such as Einstianian Physics, or any others, saying that it's not his problem. Evidently a guessing game is his preferred method of communication. He has done everything he could to not discuss the vacuum ship concept as a valid proposal. I can only conclude he has another agenda which doesn't include helping humanity.

At any rate I won't be posting here on this thread any further, obviously I am unwanted here, or at least that is my sense of the responses I've received. I have no time to waste with an individual possessed of a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of omnipotence who ignores logical and honest discussion and demands answers which only validate his own ideas, most of which are completely indecipherable, and when those demands are not meant then he resorts to a psyop game to keep the discussion frustrated and meaningless. It is pointless to continue attempting to talk with him because he is clearly aware of the points but ignores them with a purpose.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 06-19-2019 at 05:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-19-2019, 06:53 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecase0 View Post
are you all talking about gravity being the container for the atmosphere ?
and that is proof that the earth is round ?
Who is your question addressed to?
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:56 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
I asked aljhoa to repost the Vacuum Ship info on the ARV thread Spacecase.
All anyone has to do is read the thread to see what was discussed.

I simply posed a question.

Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
I'm want to discuss antigravitic ideas which is obviously not what vidbid is interested in doing.
What antigravity ideas is Gambeir referring to?

Is Gambeir referring to a vacuum vehicle as part of his antigravity ideas?

Check out Post #89 of this thread as to why such a vacuum vehicle is unfeasible.

I made my opinion clear on that subject.

Now, I would my question answered by Gambeir.

My question is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Still unanswered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
I have no idea what his interest is
I would like you to answer the question, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
and he has no intention of explaining what they are either
I have already explained it. I would like Gambeir's answer to my question, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

A simple "yes" or "no" questions.

An answer for which has not been given.

Is that question too difficult for Gambeir to answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
As near as I can tell he thinks there's a metal dome over the planet
I never said that. That is what Gambeir said.

Stop comflating what I said with your ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
and that's why there is air pressure.
No. Gambeir has it wrong. My question is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
further, it is evidently too much work for him to even bother to explain what he thinks about theories such as Einstianian Physics, or any others, saying that it's not his problem.
Wrong. Gambeir is presuming to speak for me, even though he is not qualified to do so.

I am under no obligation to discipline him.

I am under no obligation to offer a solution to his problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
Evidently a guessing game is his preferred method of communication.
What is Gambeir talking about?

What communication?

I simply asked a question, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Yes or No.

What is Gambeir's answer?

If Gambeir doesn't know the answer, why doesn't he concede that he doesn't know the answer?

Is Gambeir too proud to admit that he doesn't know the answer to my question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
He has done everything he could to not discuss the vacuum ship concept as a valid proposal.
What is Gambeir talking about. I have already discussed it in Post #89.

It's not a valid concept for the reasons I explained. See the post.

I don't need to keep going back to it.

It's a red herring anyhow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
I can only conclude he has another agenda
The only agenda I have is seeing how long will it be before you finally answer my question, which is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
which doesn't include helping humanity.
What is Gambeir talking about?

That's a specious charge.

Gambeir is making up stories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
At any rate I won't be posting here on this thread any further
Why not?

Because Gambeir doesn't want to answer my question.

Then Gambeir should just say so.

Gambeir is about to play the victim card.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
obviously I am unwanted here
That's not obvious at all.

Is this all because Gambeir doesn't want to answer my question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
or at least that is my sense of the responses I've received.
What?

What are you talking about?

What responses?

I'm just asking for an answer to my question.

What's the big deal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
I have no time to waste with an individual possessed of a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of omnipotence who ignores logical and honest discussion and demands answers which only validate his own ideas, most of which are completely indecipherable, and when those demands are not meant then he resorts to a psyop game to keep the discussion frustrated and meaningless.
The last resort of a person on the losing side of a debate.

1. Ad hominem.

2. Name calling.

Who else would take the time to point out Gambeir's logical fallacies?

Did Gambeir forget about the Debate Pyramid I posted earlier in Post #81 which identifies the levels of disagreement?

Here it is for reference again:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
It is pointless to continue attempting to talk with him because he is clearly aware of the points but ignores them with a purpose.
What?

What is Gambeir talking about?

What point?

What purpose?

I simple asked Gambeir a question, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Excuse me for thinking that Gambeir was capable of answering that question.

Apparently, I was wrong; Gambeir is not capable of answering that question.

Rage quit if you want, Gambeir.

I have no ill-will towards you.

Do what you like.

I withdraw my question.

Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 06-19-2019, 08:05 PM
robur robur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 150
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
I asked aljhoa to repost the Vacuum Ship info on the ARV thread Spacecase. I'm want to discuss antigravitic ideas which is obviously not what vidbid is interested in doing. I have no idea what his interest is and he has no intention of explaining what they are either: As near as I can tell he thinks there's a metal dome over the planet and that's why there is air pressure. Further, it is evidently too much work for him to even bother to explain what he thinks about theories such as Einstianian Physics, or any others, saying that it's not his problem. Evidently a guessing game is his preferred method of communication. He has done everything he could to not discuss the vacuum ship concept as a valid proposal. I can only conclude he has another agenda which doesn't include helping humanity.

At any rate I won't be posting here on this thread any further, obviously I am unwanted here, or at least that is my sense of the responses I've received. I have no time to waste with an individual possessed of a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of omnipotence who ignores logical and honest discussion and demands answers which only validate his own ideas, most of which are completely indecipherable, and when those demands are not meant then he resorts to a psyop game to keep the discussion frustrated and meaningless. It is pointless to continue attempting to talk with him because he is clearly aware of the points but ignores them with a purpose.
Where you going to be posting then?
And WHY our technical conversation went into Flat Earth Debate?
What has it to do with what we been discussing here?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 06-19-2019, 08:31 PM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation

Physics - Thermodynamics: (1 of 1) Free Expansion - YouTube



Code:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUO88GmTM8
You can't have gas pressure next to a vacuum without there being some barrier to separate the two.

Boyle'l Law

Second Law of Thermodynamics
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:00 PM
spacecase0's Avatar
spacecase0 spacecase0 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 461
thank you all for clearing up the question I had.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:10 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
Pressure in a gas is not exactly the same as pressure in a liquid, and vice versa.
@ bottom of an ocean Water 10,000 psi = Air 10,000 psi
But steel's heavier than feathers...

Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
"Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

A simple "yes" or "no" questions.
Yes

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:49 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post

"Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

A simple "yes" or "no" questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post

Yes

Al
You said, "Yes."

Thank you for your answer.

1. Now, can you show me?

2. How can you have air pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

3. How are you able to overcome both Boyle's Law and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID

Last edited by vidbid; 06-20-2019 at 12:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:18 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
@ bottom of an ocean Water 10,000 psi = Air 10,000 psi
But steel's heavier than feathers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?
https://people.whitman.edu/~yancey/deepsearesearch.html
3. Swimbladder decompression
--a rattail hauled for 2 hrs to surface from 2000m.
The air-filled bladder cannot be adjusted fast enough for low pressure, and it expands out the mouth.
Eyes are also pushed out by expanding air.



Decompression sickness
Ascent from depth
DCS is best known as a diving disorder that affects divers having breathed gas that is at a higher pressure than the surface pressure,
owing to the pressure of the surrounding water.


Ascent to altitude
The most common health risk on ascent to altitude is not decompression sickness but altitude sickness, or acute mountain sickness (AMS)



Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 06-21-2019, 12:57 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
https://people.whitman.edu/~yancey/deepsearesearch.html
3. Swimbladder decompression
--a rattail hauled for 2 hrs to surface from 2000m.
The air-filled bladder cannot be adjusted fast enough for low pressure, and it expands out the mouth.
Eyes are also pushed out by expanding air.



Decompression sickness
Ascent from depth
DCS is best known as a diving disorder that affects divers having breathed gas that is at a higher pressure than the surface pressure,
owing to the pressure of the surrounding water.


Ascent to altitude
The most common health risk on ascent to altitude is not decompression sickness but altitude sickness, or acute mountain sickness (AMS)



Al
What is your alternative hypothesis?

What is your null hypothesis?

What is your independent variable?

What is your dependent variable?

What is your controlled variable?



Please fill in the blanks:

AH = _____________________________________________.

NH = _____________________________________________.

IV = _____________________________________________.

DV = _____________________________________________.

CV = _____________________________________________.


For more information on this subject, refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9cGu0Ebwtk

Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID

Last edited by vidbid; 06-21-2019 at 01:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 06-21-2019, 04:39 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,229
AH = a carpet__________________________________________.

NH = flat earth_________________________________________.

IV = the testament_________________________________ .

DV = the recite_________________________________________.

CV = the book__________________________________________.


Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 06-21-2019, 09:27 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,879
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
AH = a carpet__________________________________________.

NH = flat earth_________________________________________.

IV = the testament_________________________________ .

DV = the recite_________________________________________.

CV = the book__________________________________________.


Al

Invalid.

Cheers
__________________
Regards,

VIDBID
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
image, patent, time, volfson, boris, balloon, helium, nature, volt, journal, important, undoubtedly, wire, coils, 6, 960, 975, batteries, control, series, space, show, gravity, counteracts, videos, craft, wrapping

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers