What's wrong with this

[MarkE]

@ MarkE

Where was I ?

Ah yes.

"Consider now, that this "style of communication method" is something that a person may have endured for some course
of time which is not just a day, but perhaps for a week, or months or even a year." quote from floor.

More than a few people have had nervous break downs, gone into the loony bin, or commited suicide from attacks through
social media.  Some one very dear to me lost his boy friend.  This was by his suicide.  And yes is was spurred by
an orchistrated attack via social media.  An attack that had gone on for only a few weeks.  A teenager.

Doing such a thing to another human being, holds no appeal to me.

not done yet

And yet, you fail to see the irony in your own posts.  It's a curious world.

[tinman]

@ MarkE

Dude-come on

Quote:Again once what is eliminated?
Are you serious
Question was-What GAS can return most of it's energy to the source once it is eliminated.
Now,if we eliminated the source,then the energy return would have no place to go.
I placed !GAS! in red letter's incase it is still confuseing for you.

Quote: You are changing the order of the questions.  The question as stated was:What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
And your answer Mark was,Quote:it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
That is bollock's. It dose not matter wether a mass is falling through a fluid or a vacuum,the energy displacement remains the same for the parameters of the mass and distance i gave.This i thought you would know.

Quote: Then you have a different definition of gas tight than I do.
No i do not. You only assume that in order for the gas to be removed from the vessle,that is has to escape the vessle.Not correct.

Quote: Tinman, the GPE change required to lift a mass in air is:  Ge*h*m*(1-pair/pmass).  In water it is: Ge*h*m*(1-pwater/pmass).  Do you see how when the density of the mass is less than the density of water that the sign reverses and work is required to submerge the mass, and is released allowing the mass to rise.  How much work do you think that it takes to sink or raise 500kg of water in a column of water?
The questions were-What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
What is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometer's.

I said nothing about trying to lift a 500kg mass through water,i asked what is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometers-remember,we are talking about buoyancy here,so the vessle is raising itself.

Quote:2000 years of human experience with buoyancy says that you are most certainly mistaken.
Has man stood on mar's?,is it impossible.

My system will work in acordance with all laws of physics as we know them today.A mixture of todays tech can be used to make it happen.

[Floor]

It's not a question of irony it's a question of why you are pretending  not to uderstand what's
going on here.

I see your comment as lacking honesty. I could be wrong.

However, I don't belive that you think I'm wrong.

Did you not just observe in your own mind, the movments which were to convince youself that you
are being honest. It's easier to lie convincingly if one can set it up first in their own mind.

If you wish to remain in this LOW CLASS STATE of mind, It's not my place to try to force you to change.
But it does mess up the communicating with when one of the parties wont be honest.

                            not done yet

[MarkE]

@ MarkE

Dude-come on

Quote:Again once what is eliminated?
Are you serious
Question was-What GAS can return most of it's energy to the source once it is eliminated.
Now,if we eliminated the source,then the energy return would have no place to go.
I placed !GAS! in red letter's incase it is still confuseing for you.

Quote: You are changing the order of the questions.  The question as stated was:What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
And your answer Mark was,Quote:it all depends on whether the mass falls through a fluid or a vacuum.
That is bollock's. It dose not matter wether a mass is falling through a fluid or a vacuum,the energy displacement remains the same for the parameters of the mass and distance i gave.This i thought you would know.

Tinman I am sorry but you are completely wrong on this point.  Something that has the same density as the surrounding fluid neither gains nor expends GPE moving up or down because for every gram of that something that moves up, a gram of the surrounding fluid moves down an identical distance, and vice-versa.  You are conflating the absolute GPE that the object has due to its height with the energy that is gained or lost by changing its height inside a fluid volume.

Quote: Then you have a different definition of gas tight than I do.
No i do not. You only assume that in order for the gas to be removed from the vessle,that is has to escape the vessle.Not correct.

Well that creates an interesting riddle:  You get rid of something while keeping it.  Are you thinking that when you compress a gas that you are removing that gas?  n remains fixed.  PV and/or T change.

Quote: Tinman, the GPE change required to lift a mass in air is:  Ge*h*m*(1-pair/pmass).  In water it is: Ge*h*m*(1-pwater/pmass).  Do you see how when the density of the mass is less than the density of water that the sign reverses and work is required to submerge the mass, and is released allowing the mass to rise.  How much work do you think that it takes to sink or raise 500kg of water in a column of water?
The questions were-What is the total energy of a 500kg mass falling 3.2 kilometer's?
What is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometer's.

And the answer remains the same:  If the mass is immersed in some fluid then moving the mass up or down requires doing the exact opposite to a volume of the surrounding fluid equal to the volume of the object you move.  It's important to keep the books straight.

I said nothing about trying to lift a 500kg mass through water,i asked what is the total energy of a 500kg mass being raised 3.2 kilometers-remember,we are talking about buoyancy here,so the vessle is raising itself.

No buoyant object raises itself with buoyancy.  It is fluid that surrounds the submersible falling that causes the submersible to rise.  A submarine can cause that to happen by reducing its density:  IE blowing water out of its ballast tanks.

Quote:2000 years of human experience with buoyancy says that you are most certainly mistaken.
Has man stood on mar's?,is it impossible.

That is a terrible analogy.  We have 2000 years of direct intimate experience with gravity and its dependent effect buoyancy.  In all that time the behavior has been evaluated countless times and always found to behave the same.

My system will work in acordance with all laws of physics as we know them today.A mixture of todays tech can be used to make it happen.

I am sure that you sincerely believe that.  I am also quite sure that you are mistaken.

[MarkE]

It's not a question of irony it's a question of why you are pretending  not to uderstand what's
going on here.

I see your comment as lacking honesty. I could be wrong.

However, I don't belive that you think I'm wrong.

Did you not just observe in your own mind, the movments which were to convince youself that you
are being honest. It's easier to lie convincingly if one can set it up first in their own mind.

If you wish to remain in this LOW CLASS STATE of mind, It's not my place to try to force you to change.
But it does mess up the communicating with when one of the parties wont be honest.

                            not done yet

Your diatribe is entering Theatre of the Absurd territory.  If you don't see the irony between what you espouse and what you are doing, then literally the joke is on you.