Anti-gravity

[aljhoa]

AH = a carpet__________________________________________.

NH = flat earth_________________________________________.

IV = the testament_________________________________ .

DV = the recite_________________________________________.

CV = the book__________________________________________.


Al

[vidbid]

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

[aljhoa]

@ bottom of an ocean Water 10,000 psi = Air 10,000 psi
But steel's heavier than feathers...

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

[vidbid]

"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

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

[aljhoa]

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...

"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

[spacecase0]

thank you all for clearing up the question I had.

[vidbid]

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

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUO88GmTM8[/VIDEO]

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

[robur]

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?

[vidbid]

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?

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.

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?"

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?

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.

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?"

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.

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?

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.

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?"

which doesn't include helping humanity.

What is Gambeir talking about?

That's a specious charge.

Gambeir is making up stories.

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.

obviously I am unwanted here

That's not obvious at all.

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

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?

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:

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

[vidbid]

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?

[Gambeir]

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.

[spacecase0]

are you all talking about gravity being the container for the atmosphere ?
and that is proof that the earth is round ?

[vidbid]

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?

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?

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.

It is not self explanatory as you seem to assume.

That's not my problem.

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.

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

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBUChLeeNtA[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBUChLeeNtA

Cheers

[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?"

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.

[vidbid]

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/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1143&context=physicskatz

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Relation-Between-Intelligence-and-Religiosity-A-Meta-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.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/uploads/2018/06/Science%20vs%20Scientism%20Gravity%20Air%20Pressure.mp4