[Bored chemist]

Yes, you could use that one.
But instead, you invented one that makes no sense.

[guest39538]

Yes, you could use that one.
But instead, you invented one that makes no sense.

I could define density another way, the way I tried to describe it to you.  I see density to be different than ''your'' version.

It is physics that uses their own definitions , different to what normal people understand.

normal density
ˈdɛnsɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the degree of compactness of a substance.


I did not explain it wrong,

It means how many different ''parts'' are crammed into one space.    example a   2 cm ²   grid reference [a],    x,y  dimensions

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

[Bored chemist]

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

Are you really not able to recognise that, while you can scrunch up paper to fit into a smaller space, you have nor scrunched up the space itself.

[The Spoon]

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

No, by squashing it you make it smaller. You dont make it denser. You therefore obviously dont understand density then. Amongst many other things.

[guest39538]

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

No, by squashing it you make it smaller. You dont make it denser. You therefore obviously dont understand density then. Amongst many other things.

Quite obviously to the trained mind, if you can squash something making it smaller, it was not very dense to begin with.   Using a diamond in my example would not work for  because it would be to  dense to squash. However if used something sponge like I could squash a few in because the molecules of the sponge are not tight ''knitted'' like a diamond.

[Bored chemist]

Using a diamond in my example would not work for  because it would be to  dense to squash.

The comprehensibility of diamond is about 0.2ppm per atmosphere.
It's about the same as that of tungsten carbide.
However, diamond is about a quarter of the density of tungsten carbide.

You seem not to recognise that density is not a measure of compresssibility.

This, in turn, shows that you do not understand density.
Since you are relying on a misunderstanding of density when you talk about space, it is not surprising that you don't seem to understand space either.

It really is time you stopped posting this rubbish and went  and learned something.

[guest39538]

Using a diamond in my example would not work for  because it would be to  dense to squash.

The comprehensibility of diamond is about 0.2ppm per atmosphere.
It's about the same as that of tungsten carbide.
However, diamond is about a quarter of the density of tungsten carbide.

You seem not to recognise that density is not a measure of compresssibility.

This, in turn, shows that you do not understand density.
Since you are relying on a misunderstanding of density when you talk about space, it is not surprising that you don't seem to understand space either.

It really is time you stopped posting this rubbish and went  and learned something.

Wow ! your ego inflates more than the universe.  It is quite rude that you think you understand how I think about things.  I already have answered what time is and what gravity is.  A lot more than you ever do.  In fact all you seem to do is moan at people , I think I will rename you Meldrew.

[Bored chemist]

Wow ! your ego inflates more than the universe.  It is quite rude that you think you understand how I think about things.  I already have answered what time is and what gravity is.  A lot more than you ever do. 

I have a massive ego.
However it's not so big that it deludes me into thinking that " already have answered what time is and what gravity is."

In fact all you seem to do is moan at people

Only when they warrant it.
I moan at you because you post dross on a science web site.

Perhaps you would like to go back an rework your ideas now that you recognise the difference between density and compressibility.

[guest39538]

Wow ! your ego inflates more than the universe.  It is quite rude that you think you understand how I think about things.  I already have answered what time is and what gravity is.  A lot more than you ever do.

I have a massive ego.
However it's not so big that it deludes me into thinking that " already have answered what time is and what gravity is."

In fact all you seem to do is moan at people

Only when they warrant it.
I moan at you because you post dross on a science web site.

Perhaps you would like to go back an rework your ideas now that you recognise the difference between density and compressibility.

No, I have answered time and gravity,  I know I have because the answers I give are the end answer.  There is no other answer after my conclusive answer. My answers are based on reality, science and objective facts, in short when I give my certainty, that is because the laws of the universe confirm my certainty.

Challenge my time notions if you like or that neutral is attracted neutral is gravity. You will lose every time because I did not make reality .

[Kryptid]

No, I have answered time and gravity,  I know I have because the answers I give are the end answer.  There is no other answer after my conclusive answer. My answers are based on reality, science and objective facts, in short when I give my certainty, that is because the laws of the universe confirm my certainty.

Challenge my time notions if you like or that neutral is attracted neutral is gravity. You will lose every time because I did not make reality .

You have expressed similar certainty about things in the past that you ultimately ended up changing your mind about:

(Earlier) "Time dilation absolutely cannot exist, here is my logical axiom proof!"
(Later) "Okay, time dilation does exist, but it doesn't work the way scientists think it does."

(Earlier) "Electrons cannot exist independently of protons!"
(Later) "Okay, electrons can exist independently of protons, but only because they are bottled by an N-field."

[Bored chemist]

You will lose every time because I did not make reality .

I think that says a lot.