-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
And how is the air pressurized?
-
I thought you left. Care to answer some of the questions back in the other thread?
Eg. If you are floating in space, and a ball is in front of you, and you slap the ball as hard as you can, what would happen?
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
And how is the air pressurized?
By stacking.
Nope.
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
And how is the air pressurized?
By stacking.
Stacking from what? Won't the air just float away?
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
And how is the air pressurized?
By stacking.
Stacking from what? Won't the air just float away?
That depends on whether you want to take notice of why and how rather than just thinking of a global Earth.
Let me know if you want to understand.
The lengths some people go to explain away gravitation is amazing!
-
What causes atomospheric pressure?
-
Yes it is caused by stacking. And the Firmament keeps the Air from "floating away".
(http://www.stpeterslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Hebrew-Cosmology-5.jpg)
You act like it is so unbelievable that "Gravity" is actually Air Pressure when Air Pressure is a measurable force.
A column 1 square inch (6.5 cm2) in cross-section would have a weight of about 14.7 lb (6.7 kg) or about 65.4 N.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure)
Proof from Ancient Scriptures:
He said to me, "I made this decision before I created the world: before the gates of the world were standing; before the winds were brought together to blow,
or the lightning flashed, or the thunder rolled; before the foundations of Paradise were laid,
or the beautiful flowers appeared; before the powers that move the stars were established, or the armies of angels assembled;
before the air was piled up high, or the divisions of the heavens given their names; before I chose Mount Zion as my footstool;
before the present age was planned, or the scheming of its sinners was rejected, or my seal was placed on those who obeyed the Law and laid up a treasure of faithfulness.
Even then, I decided that since I, and I alone, had created the world, I, and I alone, would bring it to an end."
2 Esdraws 6:1-6
-
Yes it is caused by stacking. And the Firmament keeps the Air from "floating away".
(http://www.stpeterslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Hebrew-Cosmology-5.jpg)
You act like it is so unbelievable that "Gravity" is actually Air Pressure when Air Pressure is a measurable force.
A column 1 square inch (6.5 cm2) in cross-section would have a weight of about 14.7 lb (6.7 kg) or about 65.4 N.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure)
Proof from Ancient Scriptures:
He said to me, "I made this decision before I created the world: before the gates of the world were standing; before the winds were brought together to blow,
or the lightning flashed, or the thunder rolled; before the foundations of Paradise were laid,
or the beautiful flowers appeared; before the powers that move the stars were established, or the armies of angels assembled;
before the air was piled up high, or the divisions of the heavens given their names; before I chose Mount Zion as my footstool;
before the present age was planned, or the scheming of its sinners was rejected, or my seal was placed on those who obeyed the Law and laid up a treasure of faithfulness.
Even then, I decided that since I, and I alone, had created the world, I, and I alone, would bring it to an end."
2 Esdraws 6:1-6
How does the air know to push towards the earth and not towards the heavens?
-
That's *2 Esdras 6:1-6
And what's interesting is you can actually "Feel" Air pressure when you stick your hand out the window. The Air pressure keeps a car on the ground when traveling forward, and likewise allows and airplane to generate lift.
Now tell me, how can I "feel" gravity?
-
If you really want to know, it's because God is the Most High, and dense objects (like you) fall away.
-
That's *2 Esdras 6:1-6
And what's interesting is you can actually "Feel" Air pressure when you stick your hand out the window. The Air pressure keeps a car on the ground when traveling forward, and likewise allows and airplane to generate lift.
Now tell me, how can I "feel" gravity?
I understand what airpressure is.
Is it your assertion that air pressure creates weight?
-
No, Air Pressure is the force that pushes denser objects DOWN aka "Gravity".
Weight is caused by Density. What makes a Bowling Ball "heavier" than a Watermelon? It's the Density.
-
No, Air Pressure is the force that pushes denser objects DOWN aka "Gravity".
Weight is caused by Density. What makes a Bowling Ball "heavier" than a Watermelon? It's the Density.
That is absolutely correct.
-
No, Air Pressure is the force that pushes denser objects DOWN aka "Gravity".
Weight is caused by Density. What makes a Bowling Ball "heavier" than a Watermelon? It's the Density.
So if you remove air pressure in a vacuum chamber you'd float correct? Because there'd be nothing pushing you down.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
-
So If objects are released into a "near vacuum" why do they fall faster than before?
Also, what decided that the air was denser down at the bottom. What is keeping it from deciding that the air is denser at the top? Or being evenly dense everywhere (as all experiments say air should act without gravity)
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
And I did.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
Yep, as long as the test is done legitimately and not a con job like sokarul tried.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
Yep, as long as the test is done legitimately and not a con job like sokarul tried.
lol
Sentient air
lol
-
I see nothing wrong with sokarul's test. Perhapse you could do a better one. Actually, I just did one myself, and anybody here can.
Get a syringe, weigh it.
fill it with a little bit of water. Weigh it again.
Cover the end of the syringe, and pull the stopper to the end, creating a near-vacuum, use a screw or something similar to lock the stopper at the end.
Weigh it again. According to sceptimatic, the liquid inside should be near weightless, so it should weigh the same as when it was empty, but surprise, it doesn't.
Proving that vacuums don't make objects weightless.
-
The problem is he has claimed air can go through materials at will.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
Yep, as long as the test is done legitimately and not a con job like sokarul tried.
That's kind of the point. These discussions are only a start point. It's all just a bunch of words until we put it to the test.
I've done this experiment so I can tell you what I've seen. You can my word for it or you can run it yourself. If your results differ from mine then we have to go over our procedures and see who botched what. But if you get the same results then you might have some problems with your theory that needs some work.
That's how falsification works and it takes a certain kind of masochism to perform without prejudice because it's essentially actively working to kill your own intellectual property.
-
I see nothing wrong with sokarul's test. Perhapse you could do a better one. Actually, I just did one myself, and anybody here can.
Get a syringe, weigh it.
fill it with a little bit of water. Weigh it again.
Cover the end of the syringe, and pull the stopper to the end, creating a near-vacuum, use a screw or something similar to lock the stopper at the end.
Weigh it again. According to sceptimatic, the liquid inside should be near weightless, so it should weigh the same as when it was empty, but surprise, it doesn't.
Proving that vacuums don't make objects weightless.
I have no chance of explaining something to someone who thinks a syringe is gonna work as an experiment with scales.
Absolutely pointless.
-
The problem is he has claimed air can go through materials at will.
Air does go through materials at will, as long as those materials allow it. This is why they are less dense than other materials that that DO NOT allow air pressure to go through (saturate) them at will.
Understand this and you have a chance. Fail to grasp it and you're wasting your time and mine.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
Yep, as long as the test is done legitimately and not a con job like sokarul tried.
That's kind of the point. These discussions are only a start point. It's all just a bunch of words until we put it to the test.
I've done this experiment so I can tell you what I've seen. You can my word for it or you can run it yourself. If your results differ from mine then we have to go over our procedures and see who botched what. But if you get the same results then you might have some problems with your theory that needs some work.
That's how falsification works and it takes a certain kind of masochism to perform without prejudice because it's essentially actively working to kill your own intellectual property.
Ok, well first of all, go and get a chamber for pressurising and evacuating. Then do the tests.
-
Sceptimatic, iWitness, and Anarchist, I want you to listen to this.
Imagine you're in the KC-135 "Vomit Comet," the plane used to train astronauts for microgravity. The plane starts to accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s2, and you start to become weightless, along with everything else inside the plane. But the pressure in the plane hasn't changed at all, and you're not in contact with the outside air, so if weight is caused by pressure and density instead of gravity, how can that be?
-
I see nothing wrong with sokarul's test. Perhapse you could do a better one. Actually, I just did one myself, and anybody here can.
Get a syringe, weigh it.
fill it with a little bit of water. Weigh it again.
Cover the end of the syringe, and pull the stopper to the end, creating a near-vacuum, use a screw or something similar to lock the stopper at the end.
Weigh it again. According to sceptimatic, the liquid inside should be near weightless, so it should weigh the same as when it was empty, but surprise, it doesn't.
Proving that vacuums don't make objects weightless.
I have no chance of explaining something to someone who thinks a syringe is gonna work as an experiment with scales.
Absolutely pointless.
What is wrong with a syringe on a scale?
-
So if I am understanding scepti correctly the below is would be true if he is right:
If a take a porous material like cork, cover it in plastic wrap and suck the air out it will weigh the same as a piece of iron of the same size.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
Yep, as long as the test is done legitimately and not a con job like sokarul tried.
That's kind of the point. These discussions are only a start point. It's all just a bunch of words until we put it to the test.
I've done this experiment so I can tell you what I've seen. You can my word for it or you can run it yourself. If your results differ from mine then we have to go over our procedures and see who botched what. But if you get the same results then you might have some problems with your theory that needs some work.
That's how falsification works and it takes a certain kind of masochism to perform without prejudice because it's essentially actively working to kill your own intellectual property.
Ok, well first of all, go and get a chamber for pressurising and evacuating. Then do the tests.
Go back and read what I've written more carefully. I have performed these tests.
-
The problem is he has claimed air can go through materials at will.
Air does go through materials at will, as long as those materials allow it. This is why they are less dense than other materials that that DO NOT allow air pressure to go through (saturate) them at will.
But high density materials still weigh different. An empty gas cylinder will weigh less than a full one, but no air gets in when it's empty or full. You cannot explain this.
Understand this and you have a chance. Fail to grasp it and you're wasting your time and mine.
Stop claiming the same thing over and over. I have already shown you mean times to be wrong.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
But if you remove the air, then nothing is pushing down on the object to cause weight. The absense of air pressure would be the absense of weight in ya'lls definition.
-
So, if someone was in space, and they just twitched a muscle, they would be ripped apart because all of their body parts suddenly shot off at light speed in different directions?
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
But you agree you can lower the air pressure correct? You've not really confirmed anything I've asked of you yet but I'll try again.
Your assertion is weight is caused by the pressure of air pushing down on objects. And that the difference in weight when objects are being subjected to the same air pressure is because of density.
Am I correct in your assertions?
-
What about baloons? They also have the same amount of air "pushing them down" as everything else.
Or what about a metal stick. If you put it vertically, it weighs the same as horizontally, even though there is much less air above it "pushing it down" when it is vertical.
-
Air (or water) pressure cannot possibly cause what we call "weight" simply because air is a fluid.
Pressure in a fluid always causes a force at right-angles to the surfaces of any objects in it.
So if we have a horizontal flat sheet the force pressing down on the top surface is balanced by an equal force pressing up on the bottom.
It does not matter how high or low the pressure is the same thing applies, as long as the pressure on the top is the same as the pressure on the bottom. So the pressure does not cause any nett downward force, so does not contribute to weight.
Now we know from measurements that the air pressure gets lower as we increase in altitude.
Intuitively it would seem that this cannot be a very great amount, but it is more than we realise. A helium balloon floats simply because the air pressure pressing up from underneath is slightly greater than the air pressure pushing it down.
The amount of this lift can easily be calculated. A cubic metre of air (at STP[1]) weighs 1.225 kg, so the air pressure decreases by 1.225 kg per square metre for each metre increase in altitude. This sounds a lot until it is realised that the normal air pressure is 10,340 kg/m2.
So back to our funny cube shaped helium balloon, the total force caused the pressure on the bottom is 1.225 kg more than the force on the top, so there is a nett uplift of 1.225 kg.
Now of course we have to subtract from this the weight of the balloon. If we can neglect the weight of the balloon skin, the weight of the helium would be its density (0.164 kg/m3) times its volume (1 m3), or 0.164 kg.
So a 1 cubic metre helium balloon has a buoyancy of just over 1 kg, less the weight of the balloon structure.
In the end the shape of the balloon makes no difference and the "lift" is simply the
(density of the air displaced) x (the volume of the object)
In other words Archimedes Principle.
So, certainly density comes into working out buoyancy,
but pressure cannot cause weight, because the forces caused by pressure act equally in all directions.
[1] STP is short for Standard Pressure and Temperature, ie sea level, etc.
-
Sceptimatic, iWitness, and Anarchist, I want you to listen to this.
Imagine you're in the KC-135 "Vomit Comet," the plane used to train astronauts for microgravity. The plane starts to accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s2, and you start to become weightless, along with everything else inside the plane. But the pressure in the plane hasn't changed at all, and you're not in contact with the outside air, so if weight is caused by pressure and density instead of gravity, how can that be?
Think of the dropped lift. If it dropped at the same speed as you fell and there were scales on the floor with you on them, then you would basically (as a man made weight measurement) weigh nothing.
Now imagine the lift ascends at speed and you are on those scales. You now appear to weigh a lot more due to the force upon you.
Basically in the plane or lift you are free falling (sort of) but due to your enclosed environment, you simply appear to float.
The plane pressurises a lot more on the dive, aiding in that apparent ease of free fall (float appearance).
Ascending in a lift at speed/acceleration is pushing you into atmosphere that is resisting that push. Think of a spring.
This creates more pressure upon you and it would be registered on a scale plate if you were stood on it.
It's made out to be G-force but the real name for it should be A-force.
-
I see nothing wrong with sokarul's test. Perhapse you could do a better one. Actually, I just did one myself, and anybody here can.
Get a syringe, weigh it.
fill it with a little bit of water. Weigh it again.
Cover the end of the syringe, and pull the stopper to the end, creating a near-vacuum, use a screw or something similar to lock the stopper at the end.
Weigh it again. According to sceptimatic, the liquid inside should be near weightless, so it should weigh the same as when it was empty, but surprise, it doesn't.
Proving that vacuums don't make objects weightless.
I have no chance of explaining something to someone who thinks a syringe is gonna work as an experiment with scales.
Absolutely pointless.
What is wrong with a syringe on a scale?
Because the scale is outside with the syringe on it. It's not even an experiment at all.
Try and understand what's being talked about.
-
So if I am understanding scepti correctly the below is would be true if he is right:
If a take a porous material like cork, cover it in plastic wrap and suck the air out it will weigh the same as a piece of iron of the same size.
In a way, yes but you have to understand that you can't just put it in plastic wrap and suck the air out and see it as a cork.
Think carefully about this.
To evacuate the air from the cork you would shrink that cork severely.
So let's put this into perspective.
To make the cork as dense and weigh the same as iron at the same size ( say a 1 inch diameter iron ball) you would first have to start off with a cork about the size of yourself. Then you encase it in strong plastic (assuming we could) and evacuating the air from the cork. The plastic will then crush the cork down as long as their is air inside of the cork. If the pump was strong enough to allow the air to evacuate then the cork would be crushed by outside pressure, down to the size of your iron ball and would weigh about the same. It would be just as dense.
Can you understand what I'm telling you?
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
Yep, as long as the test is done legitimately and not a con job like sokarul tried.
That's kind of the point. These discussions are only a start point. It's all just a bunch of words until we put it to the test.
I've done this experiment so I can tell you what I've seen. You can my word for it or you can run it yourself. If your results differ from mine then we have to go over our procedures and see who botched what. But if you get the same results then you might have some problems with your theory that needs some work.
That's how falsification works and it takes a certain kind of masochism to perform without prejudice because it's essentially actively working to kill your own intellectual property.
Ok, well first of all, go and get a chamber for pressurising and evacuating. Then do the tests.
Go back and read what I've written more carefully. I have performed these tests.
Try and understand what I'm saying.
-
But high density materials still weigh different. An empty gas cylinder will weigh less than a full one, but no air gets in when it's empty or full. You cannot explain this.
You've just answered your own question.
Stop claiming the same thing over and over. I have already shown you mean times to be wrong.
You do seem mean but you've shown me nothing except bullshit. You did not follow my instructions and you know it.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
But if you remove the air, then nothing is pushing down on the object to cause weight. The absense of air pressure would be the absense of weight in ya'lls definition.
Air can only push down on an object pushing INTO it. This is how we measure the weight by man made scale plates.
-
So, if someone was in space, and they just twitched a muscle, they would be ripped apart because all of their body parts suddenly shot off at light speed in different directions?
There's no such thing as light speed. It's nonsense.
In fictional space you can move all your muscles and you go nowhere. Basically you would be in suspended animation going by how you people see space.
The truth is unknown and never will be by us humans on what is outside of this cell we live in.
-
So, if someone was in space, and they just twitched a muscle, they would be ripped apart because all of their body parts suddenly shot off at light speed in different directions?
There's no such thing as light speed. It's nonsense.
In fictional space you can move all your muscles and you go nowhere. Basically you would be in suspended animation going by how you people see space.
The truth is unknown and never will be by us humans on what is outside of this cell we live in.
Hey, welcome back scepti, I'm pleased to see you came back, I know you don't believe me, but that's not my problem.
If there is no such thing as light speed, what do you think the speed of light is?
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
But if you remove the air, then nothing is pushing down on the object to cause weight. The absense of air pressure would be the absense of weight in ya'lls definition.
Air can only push down on an object pushing INTO it. This is how we measure the weight by man made scale plates.
Right, so you agree an object in a vacuum chamber would be weightless and should float.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
But if you remove the air, then nothing is pushing down on the object to cause weight. The absense of air pressure would be the absense of weight in ya'lls definition.
Air can only push down on an object pushing INTO it. This is how we measure the weight by man made scale plates.
Get this! Air is a fluid. In a fluid pressure is the same in all directions.
In a fluid the force pushing up on the bottom of an object is almost exactly the same as the force pushing down on the top.
(I said "almost exactly" because air pressure changes slightly as we move up, only about 0.012% per metre)
In any case, the force pushing up on the bottom of an object is always greater than the force on the top of the object.
This is why an object less dense than air floats in air, or an object less dense than water floats in water - mind you old Archimedes worked this out first!
So, density is important when it comes to an object floating, but pressure is not important, only the change in pressure, which is caused by the density of the fluid.
So air pressure (or water pressure) simply cannot cause an objects weight!
You can claim that we have close minds as much as you like, but that does not change facts that have been demonstrated for hundreds of years.
It is you that has completely closed you mind to any other ideas.
-
How come when I get in an airplane and go 30,000 feet in the air, the air pressure is .3 as much as at sea level, yet I weigh the exact same?
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
-
What about baloons? They also have the same amount of air "pushing them down" as everything else.
Yes but the balloon is full of compressed air, so still creates a resistance against air above and is more dense than below.
Or what about a metal stick. If you put it vertically, it weighs the same as horizontally, even though there is much less air above it "pushing it down" when it is vertical.
A metal stick stood erect is pushing up again st the atmosphere by length, so it still pushes away the length of itself of atmosphere.
Laid horizontally is pushed the width of it's entire length against the atmosphere.
To make this easier to grasp. Imagine putting two identical sticks on a white sheet of paper. One horizontal and one vertical.
Now spray the paper and take away both sticks. You have the shapes of both sticks as white on a black back-ground.
Both stick shapes have taken up identical spaces just in different formation.
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
Do you know that I find that a completely meaningless statement? Does anyone else?
How do YOU measure weight? How can we measure anything without using man-made instruments?
By the way, I suppose you know that you cannot measure weight with a balance type "weighing machine", that just compares masses.
-
Air (or water) pressure cannot possibly cause what we call "weight" simply because air is a fluid.
Yes, it's a much less dense fluid. Water is more dense. Weight is simply a man made measurement by a man made scale using a solid base as leverage to repel/push against atmosphere and measuring the push of anything placed upon that scale plate against that atmosphere to give a reading of what we know as, WEIGHT.
Pressure in a fluid always causes a force at right-angles to the surfaces of any objects in it.
Either by push into atmosphere or by grip of atmosphere upon the surface and sides, against the leverage of the solid ground.
So if we have a horizontal flat sheet the force pressing down on the top surface is balanced by an equal force pressing up on the bottom.
No it's not. The solid floor is a resistant force that stops the push of the plate against the atmosphere above from pushing it further down. A resistance of the actual area and width of the sheet, plus the density of it.
It does not matter how high or low the pressure is the same thing applies, as long as the pressure on the top is the same as the pressure on the bottom. So the pressure does not cause any nett downward force, so does not contribute to weight.
It does matter. the higher the pressure means the higher the squeeze of any object or fluid/gas, meaning the potential for that object/fluid/gas gets squeezed upwards, or floats to our perception.
Now we know from measurements that the air pressure gets lower as we increase in altitude.
Yes, I agree with that.
Intuitively it would seem that this cannot be a very great amount, but it is more than we realise. A helium balloon floats simply because the air pressure pressing up from underneath is slightly greater than the air pressure pushing it down.
Correct. Just remember though that the atmosphere is SQUEEZING the less dense object (helium balloon for instance) UP and will continue to do so until the atmosphere reaches equilibrium, in which case we would see the balloon simply appear to hover or float, but usually would pop due to the balloon losing it's elasticity.
The amount of this lift can easily be calculated. A cubic metre of air (at STP[1]) weighs 1.225 kg, so the air pressure decreases by 1.225 kg per square metre for each metre increase in altitude. This sounds a lot until it is realised that the normal air pressure is 10,340 kg/m2.
So back to our funny cube shaped helium balloon, the total force caused the pressure on the bottom is 1.225 kg more than the force on the top, so there is a nett uplift of 1.225 kg.
Now of course we have to subtract from this the weight of the balloon. If we can neglect the weight of the balloon skin, the weight of the helium would be its density (0.164 kg/m3) times its volume (1 m3), or 0.164 kg.
So a 1 cubic metre helium balloon has a buoyancy of just over 1 kg, less the weight of the balloon structure.
There's really no need to go into this. This just adds nothing to the understanding.
In the end the shape of the balloon makes no difference and the "lift" is simply the
(density of the air displaced) x (the volume of the object)
In other words Archimedes Principle.
So, certainly density comes into working out buoyancy,
but pressure cannot cause weight, because the forces caused by pressure act equally in all directions.
[1] STP is short for Standard Pressure and Temperature, ie sea level, etc.
Shape simply makes for a better uplift.
-
So, if someone was in space, and they just twitched a muscle, they would be ripped apart because all of their body parts suddenly shot off at light speed in different directions?
There's no such thing as light speed. It's nonsense.
In fictional space you can move all your muscles and you go nowhere. Basically you would be in suspended animation going by how you people see space.
The truth is unknown and never will be by us humans on what is outside of this cell we live in.
Hey, welcome back scepti, I'm pleased to see you came back, I know you don't believe me, but that's not my problem.
If there is no such thing as light speed, what do you think the speed of light is?
Simply vibration and frequency.
Basically anything we use to transmit is done instantly to reach the distance that the energy applied allows it to.
Newtons cradle is a perfect example of what I'm taking about. It shows the basic simplicity of what's happening with everything.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
But if you remove the air, then nothing is pushing down on the object to cause weight. The absense of air pressure would be the absense of weight in ya'lls definition.
Air can only push down on an object pushing INTO it. This is how we measure the weight by man made scale plates.
Right, so you agree an object in a vacuum chamber would be weightless and should float.
No I don't.
-
Get this! Air is a fluid. In a fluid pressure is the same in all directions.
Sort of, yeah.
In a fluid the force pushing up on the bottom of an object is almost exactly the same as the force pushing down on the top.
(I said "almost exactly" because air pressure changes slightly as we move up, only about 0.012% per metre)
In any case, the force pushing up on the bottom of an object is always greater than the force on the top of the object.
No. The object itself is always greater pushing up than the force on top of the object. You need to understand this.
This is why an object less dense than air floats in air, or an object less dense than water floats in water - mind you old Archimedes worked this out first!
Ask yourself how it becomes less dense. See if you can figure it out.
So, density is important when it comes to an object floating, but pressure is not important, only the change in pressure, which is caused by the density of the fluid.
So air pressure (or water pressure) simply cannot cause an objects weight!
Atmospheric pressure is the absolute direct cause of a persons density being measured against a scale plate to record what we know as a measurement of weight.
You can claim that we have close minds as much as you like, but that does not change facts that have been demonstrated for hundreds of years.
It is you that has completely closed you mind to any other ideas.
I don't care what's been demonstrated. It's wrong.
Atmospheric pressure is 100% correct in everything we do on Earth, inside this cell.
There's no magical gravity or any of the other gunk. It's complete and utter nonsense that is turned into make believe by story telling sci-fi writers, to this very day.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
Yep, as long as the test is done legitimately and not a con job like sokarul tried.
That's kind of the point. These discussions are only a start point. It's all just a bunch of words until we put it to the test.
I've done this experiment so I can tell you what I've seen. You can my word for it or you can run it yourself. If your results differ from mine then we have to go over our procedures and see who botched what. But if you get the same results then you might have some problems with your theory that needs some work.
That's how falsification works and it takes a certain kind of masochism to perform without prejudice because it's essentially actively working to kill your own intellectual property.
Ok, well first of all, go and get a chamber for pressurising and evacuating. Then do the tests.
Go back and read what I've written more carefully. I have performed these tests.
Try and understand what I'm saying.
Adorable. You have your own pretend physics.
Alright. Have it your way. You just keep on believing that if it makes you feel better.
Just take things easy when you actually have to build things affected by gravity. You might get embarrassed.
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
Do you know that I find that a completely meaningless statement? Does anyone else?
How do YOU measure weight? How can we measure anything without using man-made instruments?
By the way, I suppose you know that you cannot measure weight with a balance type "weighing machine", that just compares masses.
Correct.
To know what you're balancing in terms of kg, etc, you must first set a weight scale measurement.
The point I'm making is, weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of the density of an object against atmospheric pressure.
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
Yep, as long as the test is done legitimately and not a con job like sokarul tried.
That's kind of the point. These discussions are only a start point. It's all just a bunch of words until we put it to the test.
I've done this experiment so I can tell you what I've seen. You can my word for it or you can run it yourself. If your results differ from mine then we have to go over our procedures and see who botched what. But if you get the same results then you might have some problems with your theory that needs some work.
That's how falsification works and it takes a certain kind of masochism to perform without prejudice because it's essentially actively working to kill your own intellectual property.
Ok, well first of all, go and get a chamber for pressurising and evacuating. Then do the tests.
Go back and read what I've written more carefully. I have performed these tests.
Try and understand what I'm saying.
Adorable. You have your own pretend physics.
Alright. Have it your way. You just keep on believing that if it makes you feel better.
Just take things easy when you actually have to build things affected by gravity. You might get embarrassed.
I don't need to use gravity to build anything. Tell me why I need gravity?
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
Do you know that I find that a completely meaningless statement? Does anyone else?
How do YOU measure weight? How can we measure anything without using man-made instruments?
By the way, I suppose you know that you cannot measure weight with a balance type "weighing machine", that just compares masses.
Correct.
To know what you're balancing in terms of kg, etc, you must first set a weight scale measurement.
The point I'm making is, weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of the density of an object against atmospheric pressure.
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
-
Sceptimatic, iWitness, and Anarchist, I want you to listen to this.
Imagine you're in the KC-135 "Vomit Comet," the plane used to train astronauts for microgravity. The plane starts to accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s2, and you start to become weightless, along with everything else inside the plane. But the pressure in the plane hasn't changed at all, and you're not in contact with the outside air, so if weight is caused by pressure and density instead of gravity, how can that be?
Think of the dropped lift. If it dropped at the same speed as you fell and there were scales on the floor with you on them, then you would basically (as a man made weight measurement) weigh nothing.
Now imagine the lift ascends at speed and you are on those scales. You now appear to weigh a lot more due to the force upon you.
Basically in the plane or lift you are free falling (sort of) but due to your enclosed environment, you simply appear to float.
The plane pressurises a lot more on the dive, aiding in that apparent ease of free fall (float appearance).
Ascending in a lift at speed/acceleration is pushing you into atmosphere that is resisting that push. Think of a spring.
This creates more pressure upon you and it would be registered on a scale plate if you were stood on it.
It's made out to be G-force but the real name for it should be A-force.
No, the plane does not do anything with pressure to make you seem weightless. It's all acceleration. Anytime you're accelerated toward the earth at the same rate as G, in our case about 9.8 m/s2, you feel weightless, regardless of whether the air around you is doing the same. I'll give you another example:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qESa6D7KVu8/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's called a drop tower. You may or may not have ridden on one before, but it lifts you and drops you. I've been on a few of them in my lifetime. I can tell you that you will feel weightless when you're being dropped, despite there being no enclosure around you to manipulate pressure.
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
Do you know that I find that a completely meaningless statement? Does anyone else?
How do YOU measure weight? How can we measure anything without using man-made instruments?
By the way, I suppose you know that you cannot measure weight with a balance type "weighing machine", that just compares masses.
Correct.
To know what you're balancing in terms of kg, etc, you must first set a weight scale measurement.
The point I'm making is, weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of the density of an object against atmospheric pressure.
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
-
Sceptimatic, iWitness, and Anarchist, I want you to listen to this.
Imagine you're in the KC-135 "Vomit Comet," the plane used to train astronauts for microgravity. The plane starts to accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s2, and you start to become weightless, along with everything else inside the plane. But the pressure in the plane hasn't changed at all, and you're not in contact with the outside air, so if weight is caused by pressure and density instead of gravity, how can that be?
Think of the dropped lift. If it dropped at the same speed as you fell and there were scales on the floor with you on them, then you would basically (as a man made weight measurement) weigh nothing.
Now imagine the lift ascends at speed and you are on those scales. You now appear to weigh a lot more due to the force upon you.
Basically in the plane or lift you are free falling (sort of) but due to your enclosed environment, you simply appear to float.
The plane pressurises a lot more on the dive, aiding in that apparent ease of free fall (float appearance).
Ascending in a lift at speed/acceleration is pushing you into atmosphere that is resisting that push. Think of a spring.
This creates more pressure upon you and it would be registered on a scale plate if you were stood on it.
It's made out to be G-force but the real name for it should be A-force.
No, the plane does not do anything with pressure to make you seem weightless. It's all acceleration. Anytime you're accelerated toward the earth at the same rate as G, in our case about 9.8 m/s2, you feel weightless, regardless of whether the air around you is doing the same. I'll give you another example:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qESa6D7KVu8/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's called a drop tower. You may or may not have ridden on one before, but it lifts you and drops you. I've been on a few of them in my lifetime. I can tell you that you will feel weightless when you're being dropped, despite there being no enclosure around you to manipulate pressure.
The same thing applies except as you feel weightless you still feel a breeze on your body from the external air.
It's no different to the lift, except one is enclosed and the other is not.
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
Do you know that I find that a completely meaningless statement? Does anyone else?
How do YOU measure weight? How can we measure anything without using man-made instruments?
By the way, I suppose you know that you cannot measure weight with a balance type "weighing machine", that just compares masses.
Correct.
To know what you're balancing in terms of kg, etc, you must first set a weight scale measurement.
The point I'm making is, weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of the density of an object against atmospheric pressure.
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
School physics.
http://practicalphysics.org/acceleration-due-gravity.html
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
Do you know that I find that a completely meaningless statement? Does anyone else?
How do YOU measure weight? How can we measure anything without using man-made instruments?
By the way, I suppose you know that you cannot measure weight with a balance type "weighing machine", that just compares masses.
Correct.
To know what you're balancing in terms of kg, etc, you must first set a weight scale measurement.
The point I'm making is, weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of the density of an object against atmospheric pressure.
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
School physics.
http://practicalphysics.org/acceleration-due-gravity.html
I actually thought - NAIVELY, that you were actually going to type something from your own.
Ahhh well, never mind.
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
Do you know that I find that a completely meaningless statement? Does anyone else?
How do YOU measure weight? How can we measure anything without using man-made instruments?
By the way, I suppose you know that you cannot measure weight with a balance type "weighing machine", that just compares masses.
Correct.
To know what you're balancing in terms of kg, etc, you must first set a weight scale measurement.
The point I'm making is, weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of the density of an object against atmospheric pressure.
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
School physics.
http://practicalphysics.org/acceleration-due-gravity.html
I actually thought - NAIVELY, that you were actually going to type something from your own.
Ahhh well, never mind.
Now you have no problem proving your belief, we await the results.
-
Congratulations! The experiment proves a Bowling Ball is more dense (heavier) than little to no air (i doubt a true vacuum is even possible).
Density does not mean weight.
Not in your indoctrinated law but in reality it is the direct cause of the man made scale measurement that determines the density against atmospheric resistance to it.
Density is mass over volume. If you have a problem with this write to NIST.
-
But high density materials still weigh different. An empty gas cylinder will weigh less than a full one, but no air gets in when it's empty or full. You cannot explain this.
You've just answered your own question.
I did, you cannot explain this. That is why you didn't.
Stop claiming the same thing over and over. I have already shown you mean times to be wrong.
You do seem mean but you've shown me nothing except bullshit. You did not follow my instructions and you know it.
[/quote]
lol
No change in weight was seen. No change in weight on top of mountains is seen.
lol
Keep crying about denpressure though.
lol
Millionaire North Korean can't even spend $300 to prove denpressure.
lol
Keep living in your pretend world though, I know your real world is shit. So shit you had to invent a pretend world to live in.
lol
-
Air (or water) pressure cannot possibly cause what we call "weight" simply because air is a fluid.
Yes, it's a much less dense fluid. Water is more dense. Weight is simply a man made measurement by a man made scale using a solid base as leverage to repel/push against atmosphere and measuring the push of anything placed upon that scale plate against that atmosphere to give a reading of what we know as, WEIGHT.
Pressure in a fluid always causes a force at right-angles to the surfaces of any objects in it.
Either by push into atmosphere or by grip of atmosphere upon the surface and sides, against the leverage of the solid ground.
The atmosphere (or any static fluid) cannot pull anything. Static fluids can only push.
So if we have a horizontal flat sheet the force pressing down on the top surface is balanced by an equal force pressing up on the bottom.
No it's not. The solid floor is a resistant force that stops the push of the plate against the atmosphere above from pushing it further down. A resistance of the actual area and width of the sheet, plus the density of it.
A solid thin sheet has the same force of the atmosphere pressing on the top and the bottom! There are no two ways about it - that is a fact. Get yourself an absolute reading pressure gauge and it will read exactly the same whichever way you point the inlet.
It does not matter how high or low the pressure is the same thing applies, as long as the pressure on the top is the same as the pressure on the bottom. So the pressure does not cause any nett downward force, so does not contribute to weight.
It does matter. the higher the pressure means the higher the squeeze of any object or fluid/gas, meaning the potential for that object/fluid/gas gets squeezed upwards, or floats to our perception.
Now we know from measurements that the air pressure gets lower as we increase in altitude.
Yes, I agree with that.
Intuitively it would seem that this cannot be a very great amount, but it is more than we realise. A helium balloon floats simply because the air pressure pressing up from underneath is slightly greater than the air pressure pushing it down.
Correct. Just remember though that the atmosphere is SQUEEZING the less dense object (helium balloon for instance) UP and will continue to do so until the atmosphere reaches equilibrium, in which case we would see the balloon simply appear to hover or float, but usually would pop due to the balloon losing it's elasticity.
The amount of this lift can easily be calculated. A cubic metre of air (at STP[1]) weighs 1.225 kg, so the air pressure decreases by 1.225 kg per square metre for each metre increase in altitude. This sounds a lot until it is realised that the normal air pressure is 10,340 kg/m2.
So back to our funny cube shaped helium balloon, the total force caused the pressure on the bottom is 1.225 kg more than the force on the top, so there is a nett uplift of 1.225 kg.
Now of course we have to subtract from this the weight of the balloon. If we can neglect the weight of the balloon skin, the weight of the helium would be its density (0.164 kg/m3) times its volume (1 m3), or 0.164 kg.
So a 1 cubic metre helium balloon has a buoyancy of just over 1 kg, less the weight of the balloon structure.
There's really no need to go into this. This just adds nothing to the understanding.
In the end the shape of the balloon makes no difference and the "lift" is simply the
(density of the air displaced) x (the volume of the object)
In other words Archimedes Principle.
So, certainly density comes into working out buoyancy,
but pressure cannot cause weight, because the forces caused by pressure act equally in all directions.
[1] STP is short for Standard Pressure and Temperature, ie sea level, etc.
Shape simply makes for a better uplift.
You claim "Shape simply makes for a better uplift." That is completely wrong, the shape of an object has no effect at all on its weight.
As long as an object has the same mass and same volume it will weigh that same, whateverthe shape.
You talk "gobbledegook" (now there's a nice old fashioned word) and you ideas are simply not borne out in practice.
As soon as we suggest something that goes against you ideas, you claim that it is because of so"man-made" instrument.
But you seem unable to suggest some way to make a measurement under those conditions.
Take a simple case. And object does not weigh more when it is pushed deeper into water, in fact it might weigh a little less.
How do you suggest we verify this by measurement. I know how I would do it.
-
Wait a minute. Does this mean that in areas of low atmospheric pressure (i.e. during a cyclone) we would weigh less?
-
I thought you left. Care to answer some of the questions back in the other thread?
Eg. If you are floating in space, and a ball is in front of you, and you slap the ball as hard as you can, what would happen?
It would hurt like a mother. ;D
-
If you are floating in space, and a ball is in front of you, and you slap the ball as hard as you can, what would happen?
He would probably punch you in the face.
-
If you are floating in space, and a ball is in front of you, and you slap the ball as hard as you can, what would happen?
He would probably punch you in the face.
I have a solution for the spherical chickens in a vacuum algorithm? Seems like a spherical chicken would approximate a one to one mapping to a ball?
For those who haven't studied physics, and don't get the joke, don't ask me google it.
-
No, Air Pressure is the force that pushes denser objects DOWN aka "Gravity".
Weight is caused by Density. What makes a Bowling Ball "heavier" than a Watermelon? It's the Density.
Air pressure provides force proportional to area, not proportional to density. You can hold any object of the same size out of the car window and it will experience the same force due to the wind, whether it's paper or leather or metal - the force will not be proportional to the density of the object itself. That's why a 1-inch-thick sheet of cardboard will be picked up by the wind while a one-inch-thick sheet of steel will not.
Gravity acts differently than air pressure - it acts proportional to the mass of the object, while air pressure doesn't. So you know the force causing things to fall towards the earth is not primarily due to air pressure.
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
I thought people like you went with the same sized object but different density fall at the same time. Are you now changing from this?
-
Air pressure provides force proportional to area, not proportional to density.
No it doesn't. It's density of any object/matter.
You can hold any object of the same size out of the car window and it will experience the same force due to the wind, whether it's paper or leather or metal - the force will not be proportional to the density of the object itself.
No you can't. It will not be the same at all.
That's like saying helicopter blades can be made of steel or paper or leather, etc.
That's why a 1-inch-thick sheet of cardboard will be picked up by the wind while a one-inch-thick sheet of steel will not.
Yes because the steel sheet is much more dense and can repel more atmospheric pressure, meaning it is pushed against the deck with more force as it resists that push.Cardboard is already saturated with atmospheric pressure, leaving little to repel .
Gravity acts differently than air pressure - it acts proportional to the mass of the object, while air pressure doesn't.
Gravity is just a made up name with different sayings that really only mean atmospheric pressure upon dense objects, or denpressure.
So you know the force causing things to fall towards the earth is not primarily due to air pressure.
It is everything to do with atmospheric pressure. Everything on Earth works because of it. No gravity needed and no magic to make the gravity con work. Just good old atmospheric pressure.
-
If air is stacked and pushing objects down (even though air pressure is greater beneath an object), what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
-
If air is stacked and pushing objects down (even though air pressure is greater beneath an object),
It's a push against resistance both ways with object and atmosphere. Atmosphere can only push back on something pushing into it to cause it to push back, or resist that push into it; whichever way you wan t to look at it.
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
-
I'm sorry, I was typing a long post here and then just wiped everything.
All this thread is a chunk of nonsense. It's so stupid I wouldn't even comment.
Atmospheric pressure causes weight? Are you mad? So on planets where there is almost no atmospheric pressure, there is no force pulling things toward they center? Why asteroids fall on surface of Mercury, Mars and Moon?
-
No you can't. It will not be the same at all.
Sure it will. Shall we perform an experiment and find out?
That's like saying helicopter blades can be made of steel or paper or leather, etc.
Helicopter blades need to be made of something solid enough to stay rigid against the air that they are pushing. The force of air would be the same for the same size, but paper or leather blades would not be strong enough for the force.
This is why wind power blades, for example, are now being made out of lightweight carbon composite instead of steel. The same size blade receives the same force from the wind regardless of what it's made of, but the carbon composite is strong enough to stay rigid against the air while being light enough to lose significantly less energy from friction and strain on the mechanisms.
If what you are saying is true, then it would make sense to make wind power blades out of the densest material possible to harness more wind energy - but that is the opposite of what they are doing.
That's why a 1-inch-thick sheet of cardboard will be picked up by the wind while a one-inch-thick sheet of steel will not.
Yes because the steel sheet is much more dense and can repel more atmospheric pressure, meaning it is pushed against the deck with more force as it resists that push.Cardboard is already saturated with atmospheric pressure, leaving little to repel.
I thought you said the air pushes much harder on the steel than it does on the cardboard. Why doesn't the steel move as easily as the cardboard?
Let's say I set up two identical lightweight carts on wheels, and attach each one to a stationary pole with an identical spring. I give both carts sails of the same thickness and area, but one of the carts has a steel sail and the other a cardboard sail. I then turn on a large fan to blow air on each of them, and measure how much the springs contract.
What does your model predict that I would measure, and why? Will the cart with the steel sail cause its spring to contract by roughly the same amount (indicating it is experiencing the same force from the wind), or significantly more (indicating the wind is pressing harder against it), or less (indicating the wind is pressing not as hard against it)?
-
If air is stacked and pushing objects down (even though air pressure is greater beneath an object),
It's a push against resistance both ways with object and atmosphere. Atmosphere can only push back on something pushing into it to cause it to push back, or resist that push into it; whichever way you wan t to look at it.
Still seems odd that it only works in a downward direction, and with pressure underneath still being more than on top.
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
So if nothing is pushing that layer down, then nothing is pushing the next layer down, all the way to the ground. Why is there any downward push on an object?
-
I'm sorry, I was typing a long post here and then just wiped everything.
All this thread is a chunk of nonsense. It's so stupid I wouldn't even comment.
Atmospheric pressure causes weight? Are you mad? So on planets where there is almost no atmospheric pressure, there is no force pulling things toward they center? Why asteroids fall on surface of Mercury, Mars and Moon?
There's no such thing as planets and asteroids and what not. All that stuff is gunk. It's nonsense, just like a silly spinning Earth is absolute nonsense.
Atmospheric pressure doesn't cause weight. Man invents weight by inventing a measuring device, called a scale to show a reading of any object placed upon that scale against atmospheric pressure, where the object resists the pressure of atmosphere by using the scale plate as a resistant area in order to stop being pushed down.
The scale plate is designed to give way to that pressure which shows as a reading of what we call, weight.
Students and people of this Earth are duped into believing that a fictional force of gravity that isn't a force but is a force when needed but not a force when magical things need explaining...and so on and so on and so on.
Start thinking for yourself. Seriously.
-
I'm sorry, I was typing a long post here and then just wiped everything.
All this thread is a chunk of nonsense. It's so stupid I wouldn't even comment.
Atmospheric pressure causes weight? Are you mad? So on planets where there is almost no atmospheric pressure, there is no force pulling things toward they center? Why asteroids fall on surface of Mercury, Mars and Moon?
There's no such thing as planets and asteroids and what not. All that stuff is gunk. It's nonsense, just like a silly spinning Earth is absolute nonsense.
Atmospheric pressure doesn't cause weight. Man invents weight by inventing a measuring device, called a scale to show a reading of any object placed upon that scale against atmospheric pressure, where the object resists the pressure of atmosphere by using the scale plate as a resistant area in order to stop being pushed down.
The scale plate is designed to give way to that pressure which shows as a reading of what we call, weight.
Students and people of this Earth are duped into believing that a fictional force of gravity that isn't a force but is a force when needed but not a force when magical things need explaining...and so on and so on and so on.
Start thinking for yourself. Seriously.
How do I calculate the acceleration of falling pieces of different metals of the same size?
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
I thought people like you went with the same sized object but different density fall at the same time. Are you now changing from this?
Not really. If air resistance is ignored, then objects with different densities will fall at the same rate. However, air resistance can and will affect less dense objects far more than more dense objects. For very low density objects, buoyancy can become a significant factor as well.
-
Atmospheric pressure doesn't cause weight. Man invents weight by inventing a measuring device, called a scale to show a reading of any object placed upon that scale against atmospheric pressure, where the object resists the pressure of atmosphere by using the scale plate as a resistant area in order to stop being pushed down.
So you agree that a force exerted on a spring will compress the spring in proportion to the amount of force. Yes?
What will happen if I put two same-size blocks on wheels, one made of solid wood and one made of cardboard, I put springs horizontally between them and a wall, and I blow on both with a fan? Will they compress the spring the same amount?
Your model would require, I think, that the block of solid wood would compress the spring more than the cardboard block. That is, after all, how it is that the solid wood block "weighs" more when you set it on a vertical spring according to your model. In contrast, in my model the springs would be compressed the same amount.
Do you agree with what I claim your model would predict? Because, if so, we have a physical test of both models to determine which one is correct. Right?
-
Scepti
If you consider yourself a FE scientist, or what ever you prefer to call it, you really need to take a long hard look at the questions people are posting here.
Lets just say you are on the right track. If you ignore the tough questions and just wave them away your hypothesis will remain just that.
Your denpressure hypothesis fails to answer many questions adequately and I assume you do not consider yourself all knowing and infallible. Good scientist not only look at what proves them right, but also what proves them wrong.
Questions denpressure fails to answer:
What keeps the atmosphere in place? Nature likes balance and pressure will equalize unless some thing prevents it from happening. Why does the atmosphere not move towards the vacuum of space?
Why does the atmosphere become denser at lower altitudes? Simple experiments can be conducted to show that a liquid of the same density will not do this unless something is acting on it.
Why do things fall at the same rate regardless of the surface area or density? Want to see this for yourself make a vacuum chamber and drop different things in it.
Why does it require less energy to move horizontally then it does to move upward? If what is holding me on the ground is air pressure and it is acting equally in all directions.
I will leave it a that.
-
The other test we should be able to do is the following.
Have a jet of air blowing straight up. Put a piece of cardboard in it such that it is suspended in the air - the downward force is entirely counteracted by the upward force of the air.
Now, replace the piece of cardboard with a sheet of metal. If the "weight is due to air pressure" model is accurate, than the metal should be suspended in the air exactly as the cardboard was, correct? Because air acts proportionately on both objects, so however much more the downward air is pressing on the object should be the same proportion as the upward air.
Do you agree with this, that the same pressure of upward air will counteract the weight of any object? If not, why not? That seems to be what your model would predict.
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
I thought people like you went with the same sized object but different density fall at the same time. Are you now changing from this?
Not really. If air resistance is ignored, then objects with different densities will fall at the same rate. However, air resistance can and will affect less dense objects far more than more dense objects. For very low density objects, buoyancy can become a significant factor as well.
Please explain for lead and copper objects of the same size.
-
The air resistance on lead and copper balls of the same size should be very little, so if you drop them they should accelerate at the same rate.
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
The word "weight" is defined as such. There is no causality.
Have a jet of air blowing straight up.
Able???????????
Come back when you have (a) constructed such a magical jet and (b) proven it is blowing air "straight" up.
HINT: Do not bother. It is impossible to construct what you propose as an experiment and your proposal has NO BEARING upon reality.
Message to honest true-earthers:
The true form of the earth is not a function of any answers to ridiculous and irrelevent questions.
-
The air resistance on lead and copper balls of the same size should be very little, so if you drop them they should accelerate at the same rate.
What are the units of 'air resistance' and how is it measured?
-
Have a jet of air blowing straight up.
Able???????????
Come back when you have (a) constructed such a magical jet and (b) proven it is blowing air "straight" up.
HINT: Do not bother. It is impossible to construct what you propose as an experiment and your proposal has NO BEARING upon reality.
I don't see what your problem is. What AdamSK is describing could easily be accomplished with a hair dryer.
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
I thought people like you went with the same sized object but different density fall at the same time. Are you now changing from this?
Not really. If air resistance is ignored, then objects with different densities will fall at the same rate. However, air resistance can and will affect less dense objects far more than more dense objects. For very low density objects, buoyancy can become a significant factor as well.
Please explain for lead and copper objects of the same size.
Explain what? ???
-
I don't see what your problem is. What AdamSK is describing could easily be accomplished with a hair dryer.
Yet, he needs to come to The Flat Earth Society to get some attention before he can test his non-existent/impossible gadgetry.
You shills are terrible.
Stop lying.
-
The air resistance on lead and copper balls of the same size should be very little, so if you drop them they should accelerate at the same rate.
What are the units of 'air resistance' and how is it measured?
There are several different types of air resistance (drag), but like other forms of resistance, drag is a force and as such is generally measured in newtons.
-
I'm sorry, I was typing a long post here and then just wiped everything.
All this thread is a chunk of nonsense. It's so stupid I wouldn't even comment.
Atmospheric pressure causes weight? Are you mad? So on planets where there is almost no atmospheric pressure, there is no force pulling things toward they center? Why asteroids fall on surface of Mercury, Mars and Moon?
There's no such thing as planets and asteroids and what not. All that stuff is gunk. It's nonsense, just like a silly spinning Earth is absolute nonsense.
Atmospheric pressure doesn't cause weight. Man invents weight by inventing a measuring device, called a scale to show a reading of any object placed upon that scale against atmospheric pressure, where the object resists the pressure of atmosphere by using the scale plate as a resistant area in order to stop being pushed down.
The scale plate is designed to give way to that pressure which shows as a reading of what we call, weight.
Students and people of this Earth are duped into believing that a fictional force of gravity that isn't a force but is a force when needed but not a force when magical things need explaining...and so on and so on and so on.
Start thinking for yourself. Seriously.
Reading this and watching Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Mars and Saturn at the same time. Guys today you can see all of these planets in the evening! Go to star party! Furthermore, four Galilean Moons of Jupiter were never so beautiful as today. I hope you have a telescope on a motorized mount to automatically compensate Earth rotation. Otherwise planets are going pretty fast out of field of view of the eyepieces.
;D ;D ;D
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
I thought people like you went with the same sized object but different density fall at the same time. Are you now changing from this?
Not really. If air resistance is ignored, then objects with different densities will fall at the same rate. However, air resistance can and will affect less dense objects far more than more dense objects. For very low density objects, buoyancy can become a significant factor as well.
Please explain for lead and copper objects of the same size.
Explain what? ???
Scepti says lead and copper fall at different rates.
-
How do balloons work?
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
I thought people like you went with the same sized object but different density fall at the same time. Are you now changing from this?
Not really. If air resistance is ignored, then objects with different densities will fall at the same rate. However, air resistance can and will affect less dense objects far more than more dense objects. For very low density objects, buoyancy can become a significant factor as well.
Please explain for lead and copper objects of the same size.
Explain what? ???
Scepti says lead and copper fall at different rates.
Yes, well scepti says a lot of things that are wrong.
-
How do balloons work?
They don't. It's a conspiracy of NASA. I've never saw a balloon myself..
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
The word "weight" is defined as such. There is no causality.
Have a jet of air blowing straight up.
Able???????????
Come back when you have (a) constructed such a magical jet and (b) proven it is blowing air "straight" up.
HINT: Do not bother. It is impossible to construct what you propose as an experiment and your proposal has NO BEARING upon reality.
Message to honest true-earthers:
The true form of the earth is not a function of any answers to ridiculous and irrelevent questions.
Are you saying you can't point a desk fan up?
-
Sure it will. Shall we perform an experiment and find out?
Yes.
Helicopter blades need to be made of something solid enough to stay rigid against the air that they are pushing. The force of air would be the same for the same size, but paper or leather blades would not be strong enough for the force.
This is why wind power blades, for example, are now being made out of lightweight carbon composite instead of steel. The same size blade receives the same force from the wind regardless of what it's made of, but the carbon composite is strong enough to stay rigid against the air while being light enough to lose significantly less energy from friction and strain on the mechanisms.
If what you are saying is true, then it would make sense to make wind power blades out of the densest material possible to harness more wind energy - but that is the opposite of what they are doing.
You lost the whole point as to what we were talking about. Look back.
I thought you said the air pushes much harder on the steel than it does on the cardboard. Why doesn't the steel move as easily as the cardboard?
Because it repels atmospheric pressure much more than the cardboard.
Let's say I set up two identical lightweight carts on wheels, and attach each one to a stationary pole with an identical spring. I give both carts sails of the same thickness and area, but one of the carts has a steel sail and the other a cardboard sail. I then turn on a large fan to blow air on each of them, and measure how much the springs contract.
What does your model predict that I would measure, and why? Will the cart with the steel sail cause its spring to contract by roughly the same amount (indicating it is experiencing the same force from the wind), or significantly more (indicating the wind is pressing harder against it), or less (indicating the wind is pressing not as hard against it)?
That all depends on the rigidness of the cardboard sail. It's a bit of a duff thought experiment to be honest.
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
I thought people like you went with the same sized object but different density fall at the same time. Are you now changing from this?
Not really. If air resistance is ignored, then objects with different densities will fall at the same rate. However, air resistance can and will affect less dense objects far more than more dense objects. For very low density objects, buoyancy can become a significant factor as well.
Yep, more significant than you care to admit to.
-
Still waiting for your proof that same size objects of lead and aluminium fall at different speeds.
I don't have a skyscraper to prove this, so it's going to be physically hard to prove and you know this.
Not at all. When Galileo was studying gravity, he would roll balls of different weights down a ramp in order to slow the rate at which things fell.
I thought people like you went with the same sized object but different density fall at the same time. Are you now changing from this?
Not really. If air resistance is ignored, then objects with different densities will fall at the same rate. However, air resistance can and will affect less dense objects far more than more dense objects. For very low density objects, buoyancy can become a significant factor as well.
Yep, more significant than you care to admit to.
Some numbers please. And speed of fall in a vacuum for different objects please.
-
I'll just ask this one question since I think it may have been missed in my last post.
I pushed my refrigerator today and moved it. I am unable to lift my refrigerator completely off the ground myself. Why does it require less force to move something by pushing it than it does to lift it? If air pressure is what keeps things on the ground why does it only act in one direction?
-
Scepti
If you consider yourself a FE scientist, or what ever you prefer to call it, you really need to take a long hard look at the questions people are posting here.
Lets just say you are on the right track. If you ignore the tough questions and just wave them away your hypothesis will remain just that.
It will most likely remain so no matter what.
The thing is, I always try to answer all questions but some questions are put in such a way as to try and get me to answer where it appears that I'm contradicting myself. It's a deliberate attempt to twist, so I ignore them.
I think I do a very good job of answering to many. The issue is in people just not grasping or not wanting to grasp what's being said.
Your denpressure hypothesis fails to answer many questions adequately and I assume you do not consider yourself all knowing and infallible. Good scientist not only look at what proves them right, but also what proves them wrong.
Questions denpressure fails to answer:
What keeps the atmosphere in place?
A naturally formed dome of hydrogen/helium (possibly) ice, formed due to the expansion of it's molecules into a near dormant state against a true vacuum (possibly).
Nature likes balance and pressure will equalize unless some thing prevents it from happening. Why does the atmosphere not move towards the vacuum of space?
Because space does not exist. The more reality is what's known as (to our perception) a true vacuum or the absence of all matter, (Earth) leaving, basically blackness to our vision.
Why does the atmosphere become denser at lower altitudes?
Compression.
Stack billions of footballs and soon enough the bottom ones will be crushed to the size of peas and yet the top ones will stay as a football.
Atmospheric stacking.
Simple experiments can be conducted to show that a liquid of the same density will not do this unless something is acting on it.
And what is acting on liquid?....Atmospheric pressure.
Why do things fall at the same rate regardless of the surface area or density? Want to see this for yourself make a vacuum chamber and drop different things in it.
A vacuum chamber, or shall we say, a chamber with lower pressure simply allows objects to come up against less resistance to their mass. They don't fall at the same rate, it just appears that they do, due to the chambers not being of any great height.
Why does it require less energy to move horizontally then it does to move upward?
If what is holding me on the ground is air pressure and it is acting equally in all directions.
I will leave it a that.
Because walking horizontally requires little bending of the limbs to push away atmospheric pressure.
Walking up a gradient or a ladder/stairs requires you to push your limbs much more into atmospheric pressure.
You may think it seems little but it is far from it when you think carefully about it.
-
The other test we should be able to do is the following.
Have a jet of air blowing straight up. Put a piece of cardboard in it such that it is suspended in the air - the downward force is entirely counteracted by the upward force of the air.
Now, replace the piece of cardboard with a sheet of metal. If the "weight is due to air pressure" model is accurate, than the metal should be suspended in the air exactly as the cardboard was, correct?
Because air acts proportionately on both objects, so however much more the downward air is pressing on the object should be the same proportion as the upward air.
Do you agree with this, that the same pressure of upward air will counteract the weight of any object? If not, why not? That seems to be what your model would predict.
No I don't agree with it and the reason I don't is because of what I explained earlier about the metal displacing more atmosphere due to its density not allowing atmosphere to penetrate the metal anywhere near the amount it can with cardboard.
Honestly I want you to seriously try to grasp what I'm telling you.
-
The air resistance on lead and copper balls of the same size should be very little, so if you drop them they should accelerate at the same rate.
Yep. It woould take one hell of a height to show the minor differences of both balls, because both balls displace similar but not quite the same atmosphere.
-
Why do things fall at the same rate regardless of the surface area or density? Want to see this for yourself make a vacuum chamber and drop different things in it.
A vacuum chamber, or shall we say, a chamber with lower pressure simply allows objects to come up against less resistance to their mass. They don't fall at the same rate, it just appears that they do, due to the chambers not being of any great height.
They do fall at the same rate.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/E43-CfukEgs
-
I'm sorry, I was typing a long post here and then just wiped everything.
All this thread is a chunk of nonsense. It's so stupid I wouldn't even comment.
Atmospheric pressure causes weight? Are you mad? So on planets where there is almost no atmospheric pressure, there is no force pulling things toward they center? Why asteroids fall on surface of Mercury, Mars and Moon?
There's no such thing as planets and asteroids and what not. All that stuff is gunk. It's nonsense, just like a silly spinning Earth is absolute nonsense.
Atmospheric pressure doesn't cause weight. Man invents weight by inventing a measuring device, called a scale to show a reading of any object placed upon that scale against atmospheric pressure, where the object resists the pressure of atmosphere by using the scale plate as a resistant area in order to stop being pushed down.
The scale plate is designed to give way to that pressure which shows as a reading of what we call, weight.
Students and people of this Earth are duped into believing that a fictional force of gravity that isn't a force but is a force when needed but not a force when magical things need explaining...and so on and so on and so on.
Start thinking for yourself. Seriously.
Reading this and watching Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Mars and Saturn at the same time. Guys today you can see all of these planets in the evening! Go to star party! Furthermore, four Galilean Moons of Jupiter were never so beautiful as today. I hope you have a telescope on a motorized mount to automatically compensate Earth rotation. Otherwise planets are going pretty fast out of field of view of the eyepieces.
;D ;D ;D
You can see reflections of somethings that you believe are planets. Whatever you see in that dark sky, apart from the man made objects, like planes and falling hydrogen ice build up, are simply Earth projections.
-
The air resistance on lead and copper balls of the same size should be very little, so if you drop them they should accelerate at the same rate.
Yep. It woould take one hell of a height to show the minor differences of both balls, because both balls displace similar but not quite the same atmosphere.
How do we measure the displacement of the atmosphere for an object? What are the units?
-
I'm sorry, I was typing a long post here and then just wiped everything.
All this thread is a chunk of nonsense. It's so stupid I wouldn't even comment.
Atmospheric pressure causes weight? Are you mad? So on planets where there is almost no atmospheric pressure, there is no force pulling things toward they center? Why asteroids fall on surface of Mercury, Mars and Moon?
There's no such thing as planets and asteroids and what not. All that stuff is gunk. It's nonsense, just like a silly spinning Earth is absolute nonsense.
Atmospheric pressure doesn't cause weight. Man invents weight by inventing a measuring device, called a scale to show a reading of any object placed upon that scale against atmospheric pressure, where the object resists the pressure of atmosphere by using the scale plate as a resistant area in order to stop being pushed down.
The scale plate is designed to give way to that pressure which shows as a reading of what we call, weight.
Students and people of this Earth are duped into believing that a fictional force of gravity that isn't a force but is a force when needed but not a force when magical things need explaining...and so on and so on and so on.
Start thinking for yourself. Seriously.
Reading this and watching Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Mars and Saturn at the same time. Guys today you can see all of these planets in the evening! Go to star party! Furthermore, four Galilean Moons of Jupiter were never so beautiful as today. I hope you have a telescope on a motorized mount to automatically compensate Earth rotation. Otherwise planets are going pretty fast out of field of view of the eyepieces.
;D ;D ;D
You can see reflections of somethings that you believe are planets. Whatever you see in that dark sky, apart from the man made objects, like planes and falling hydrogen ice build up, are simply Earth projections.
Projections from where exactly?
-
How do balloons work?
Be more specific.
-
I'll just ask this one question since I think it may have been missed in my last post.
I pushed my refrigerator today and moved it. I am unable to lift my refrigerator completely off the ground myself. Why does it require less force to move something by pushing it than it does to lift it? If air pressure is what keeps things on the ground why does it only act in one direction?
Because you are using the floor as your leverage to push atmosphere out of the way at the front and forcing it to come round the back of you which aids you in your push, once you are underway.
It's why it's easier to push something once you gain motion, because you are compressing the air in front of the fridge and yourself and sending it around the fridge as well as dropping the pressure down from above as you move. This creates a push back on your.
To lift your fridge, you have to not only bend your limbs but also push that fridge into atmosphere to send that compressed atmosphere around that fridge. The issue is in using the entire fridge to compress it whilst only using your limbs as leverage as opposed to having the use of limbs plus fridge on the floor as leverage in your horizontal movement.
-
Why do things fall at the same rate regardless of the surface area or density? Want to see this for yourself make a vacuum chamber and drop different things in it.
A vacuum chamber, or shall we say, a chamber with lower pressure simply allows objects to come up against less resistance to their mass. They don't fall at the same rate, it just appears that they do, due to the chambers not being of any great height.
They do fall at the same rate.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/E43-CfukEgs
That is an absolute stinking con and anyone should be able to see that.
They all act like they've never ever seen something like this before in this massive supposed vacuum chamber.
The reality is, they actually haven't seen anything that remotely resembles what they're trying to con us all with.
The shaky pipes as an extra gimmick to have us all believe that this big numb room is some kind of frigging vacuum chamber.
It's nonsense.
-
I'll just ask this one question since I think it may have been missed in
I pushed my refrigerator today and moved it. I am unable to lift my refrigerator completely off the ground myself. Why does it require less force to move something by pushing it than it does to lift it? If air pressure is what keeps things on the ground why does it only act in one direction?
Because you are using the floor as your leverage to push atmosphere out of the way at the front and forcing it to come round the back of you which aids you in your push, once you are underway.
It's why it's easier to push something once you gain motion, because you are compressing the air in front of the fridge and yourself and sending it around the fridge as well as dropping the pressure down from above as you move. This creates a push back on your.
To lift your fridge, you have to not only bend your limbs but also push that fridge into atmosphere to send that compressed atmosphere around that fridge. The issue is in using the entire fridge to compress it whilst only using your limbs as leverage as opposed to having the use of limbs plus fridge on the floor as leverage in your horizontal movement.
What?
You'd have less air resistance and surface friction going up than forwards if only air pressure played a role in your definition and therefore it'd be easier to go up then forward with the fridge. But it's not.
-
I'll just ask this one question since I think it may have been missed in
I pushed my refrigerator today and moved it. I am unable to lift my refrigerator completely off the ground myself. Why does it require less force to move something by pushing it than it does to lift it? If air pressure is what keeps things on the ground why does it only act in one direction?
Because you are using the floor as your leverage to push atmosphere out of the way at the front and forcing it to come round the back of you which aids you in your push, once you are underway.
It's why it's easier to push something once you gain motion, because you are compressing the air in front of the fridge and yourself and sending it around the fridge as well as dropping the pressure down from above as you move. This creates a push back on your.
To lift your fridge, you have to not only bend your limbs but also push that fridge into atmosphere to send that compressed atmosphere around that fridge. The issue is in using the entire fridge to compress it whilst only using your limbs as leverage as opposed to having the use of limbs plus fridge on the floor as leverage in your horizontal movement.
What?
You'd have less air resistance and surface friction going up than forwards if only air pressure played a role in your definition and therefore it'd be easier to go up then forward with the fridge. But it's not.
Let me know when you want to try and understand what's been said and I'll consider trying to help you.
-
Can you explain how the air flow makes it easier to push?
-
Can you explain how the air flow makes it easier to push?
I've just explained it a few posts back. Read it and absorb it.
-
I'm confirming. The compression of air in front of moving object makes a wake behind the object that makes it easier for said object to move forward and therefore uses less energy to move forward.
That's what you're asserting right?
-
I'm confirming. The compression of air in front of moving object makes a wake behind the object that makes it easier for said object to move forward and therefore uses less energy to move forward.
That's what you're asserting right?
Once in motion, yes.
-
Is the calculatable? Do you know what percentage of wake pushes an object forward? Is it scalable?
-
But the air doesn't compress. Take a gague and read it.
Also, if pressure causes weight, does MORE pressure cause MORE weight? If I were to go in a room with twice as much air pressure, would I weigh twice as much?
-
Is the calculatable? Do you know what percentage of wake pushes an object forward? Is it scalable?
No need for calculations. It's about understanding that gravity is a complete and utter fabrication and that denpressure is a force that shows much more reality to a domed flattish Earth.
-
Is the calculatable? Do you know what percentage of wake pushes an object forward? Is it scalable?
No need for calculations. It's about understanding that gravity is a complete and utter fabrication and that denpressure is a force that shows much more reality to a domed flattish Earth.
No need for calculations? How come aircraft can perfectly calculate the life generated by wings if there is no need for calculations?
So your model just "works" without anybody knowing HOW it works?
I'll stick to the model that I know how it works. And can calculate using basic math.
-
But the air doesn't compress. Take a gague and read it.
Air does compress and I don't know what a gague is.
Also, if pressure causes weight, does MORE pressure cause MORE weight?
Yes.
If I were to go in a room with twice as much air pressure, would I weigh twice as much?
You would require scales in that room and that means the scales would take on that pressure onto the scale plate.
Do you know why valves close on tyres after air is pumped into the tyre?
-
Is the calculatable? Do you know what percentage of wake pushes an object forward? Is it scalable?
No need for calculations. It's about understanding that gravity is a complete and utter fabrication and that denpressure is a force that shows much more reality to a domed flattish Earth.
No need for calculations? How come aircraft can perfectly calculate the life generated by wings if there is no need for calculations?
So your model just "works" without anybody knowing HOW it works?
I'll stick to the model that I know how it works. And can calculate using basic math.
Calculations can be made for all kinds of stuff to have them work how we require them. I'm simply telling you that there's no need to use them to explain what I'm explaining.
Anyway, you stick to your version, I'm fine with that.
-
Is the calculatable? Do you know what percentage of wake pushes an object forward? Is it scalable?
No need for calculations. It's about understanding that gravity is a complete and utter fabrication and that denpressure is a force that shows much more reality to a domed flattish Earth.
I've not mentioned gravity. And calculations are always needed. How else would you measure something.
How else would you take advantage of it, study it. Say we wanted to find the optimal speed to take advantage of the wake, what speed would that be. Does the shape of the object change the wake, or how the wake affects the push that it provides the object? These are things that would lead to more fuel effecient vehicles right?
I'd say calculations are paramount.
-
Then how come I weigh the same on top of Mt. Crested Butte (11,875 feet, 14.06 PSI) as I do on Galveston Beach? (0 feet, 14.6 PSI)
By your logic, I should weigh .96 times as much. About 6 pounds less. Yet I weigh exactly the same.
-
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
So if nothing is pushing/pulling the topmost molecules down on the layers below....
Stack billions of footballs and soon enough the bottom ones will be crushed to the size of peas and yet the top ones will stay as a football.
Atmospheric stacking.
Then what is pushing/pulling the bottom layers of air down to cause the increase in air pressure and "stacking"?
-
I'm confirming. The compression of air in front of moving object makes a wake behind the object that makes it easier for said object to move forward and therefore uses less energy to move forward.
That's what you're asserting right?
Once in motion, yes.
::) Surely you must be trying to get everything completely backwards just to confuse everyone. ::)
Nobody could really believe this stuff! Of course if you are empty headed enough. . . . .
A tiny bit of thought would indicate
that the "piling up of air or water" in front of an object would cause a high pressure region that would resist the progress.
Likewise the "lack of air or water" behind the object would cause a low pressure region that again impede progress.
Still, I guess we only read Sceppy's pronouncements for light entertainment.
Mind if Sceppy ever designs an aeroplane, I guarantee it would work better as a submarine.
;D It would probably "fly" backwards. ;D
-
I'll just ask this one question since I think it may have been missed in my last post.
I pushed my refrigerator today and moved it. I am unable to lift my refrigerator completely off the ground myself. Why does it require less force to move something by pushing it than it does to lift it? If air pressure is what keeps things on the ground why does it only act in one direction?
Because you are using the floor as your leverage to push atmosphere out of the way at the front and forcing it to come round the back of you which aids you in your push, once you are underway.
It's why it's easier to push something once you gain motion, because you are compressing the air in front of the fridge and yourself and sending it around the fridge as well as dropping the pressure down from above as you move. This creates a push back on your.
To lift your fridge, you have to not only bend your limbs but also push that fridge into atmosphere to send that compressed atmosphere around that fridge. The issue is in using the entire fridge to compress it whilst only using your limbs as leverage as opposed to having the use of limbs plus fridge on the floor as leverage in your horizontal movement.
The surface area of the fridge compressing the air as you lift it is less than the surface area compressing the air as you move it sideways.
Why does the advantage of air coming back around to push once you are underway disappear when lifting vs pushing the fridge?
You're still bending your limbs and pushing off the floor to move the fridge sideways.
If anything, according the physics of denpressure, it should be harder to push the fridge across the floor than it is to lift, because you have to deal with the added friction of the fridge's contact with the floor.
-
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
So if nothing is pushing/pulling the topmost molecules down on the layers below....
Stack billions of footballs and soon enough the bottom ones will be crushed to the size of peas and yet the top ones will stay as a football.
Atmospheric stacking.
Then what is pushing/pulling the bottom layers of air down to cause the increase in air pressure and "stacking"?
The push against each molecules in the stack from below.
-
Then how come I weigh the same on top of Mt. Crested Butte (11,875 feet, 14.06 PSI) as I do on Galveston Beach? (0 feet, 14.6 PSI)
By your logic, I should weigh .96 times as much. About 6 pounds less. Yet I weigh exactly the same.
"Slight" correction. According to Air Pressure at Altitude Calculator (http://www.mide.com/pages/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculator) the sea level air pressure is about 14.70 psi and at 11,875 feet should be about 9.40 psi. Looks bad for Sceppy's "pressure causes weight"!
;D But of course you must use" Sceptimatic's approved scales, supplied (at great expense) only by "Sceppy, Inc, Cayman Islands"[1] ;D
[1] All payments by direct deposit into numbered bank account.
-
OK, I should weigh 3 pounds less, but I still weigh the exact same.
-
The air resistance on lead and copper balls of the same size should be very little, so if you drop them they should accelerate at the same rate.
What are the units of 'air resistance' and how is it measured?
Units of force. Measured empirically by blowing air over a body and measuring the force pushing against it. Roughly proportional to velocity and surface area.
-
The other test we should be able to do is the following.
Have a jet of air blowing straight up. Put a piece of cardboard in it such that it is suspended in the air - the downward force is entirely counteracted by the upward force of the air.
Now, replace the piece of cardboard with a sheet of metal. If the "weight is due to air pressure" model is accurate, than the metal should be suspended in the air exactly as the cardboard was, correct?
Because air acts proportionately on both objects, so however much more the downward air is pressing on the object should be the same proportion as the upward air.
Do you agree with this, that the same pressure of upward air will counteract the weight of any object? If not, why not? That seems to be what your model would predict.
No I don't agree with it and the reason I don't is because of what I explained earlier about the metal displacing more atmosphere due to its density not allowing atmosphere to penetrate the metal anywhere near the amount it can with cardboard.
Honestly I want you to seriously try to grasp what I'm telling you.
I'm honestly trying to understand what you're telling me.
You said I would feel more force from the wind in sticking a piece of metal out the window than a piece of cardboard of the same area. Or did I misunderstand?
And the scale spring compresses more for the metal block than the cardboard block because the air is exerting more force on it. Or did I misunderstand?
But you are also saying that if I blow on both a piece of cardboard and a piece of metal that I will measure the same force. Right?
It seems like air is pushing harder on the metal some of the time but not any harder other times, and I haven't figured out how you are deciding which is which.
What I am trying to do is find a controlled laboratory experiment where the gravity model and the air pressure model make measurably different predictions. It would help if you could explain why, when the air pressing on the cardboard sheet from below pushes just as hard as the air pushing it from above, the same would not be true for the metal sheet.
-
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
So if nothing is pushing/pulling the topmost molecules down on the layers below....
Stack billions of footballs and soon enough the bottom ones will be crushed to the size of peas and yet the top ones will stay as a football.
Atmospheric stacking.
Then what is pushing/pulling the bottom layers of air down to cause the increase in air pressure and "stacking"?
The push against each molecules in the stack from below.
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
The word "weight" is defined as such. There is no causality.
Have a jet of air blowing straight up.
Able???????????
Come back when you have (a) constructed such a magical jet and (b) proven it is blowing air "straight" up.
HINT: Do not bother. It is impossible to construct what you propose as an experiment and your proposal has NO BEARING upon reality.
Message to honest true-earthers:
The true form of the earth is not a function of any answers to ridiculous and irrelevent questions.
Are you saying you can't point a desk fan up?
No.
I am saying that you can "point a desk fan up" all you want but you are NEVER going to "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." Your bullshit experiment is both a physical impossibility and a a dead end, even if it was possible to execute.
I am saying your instruction "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." is pure fantasy. It is impossible to do and impossible to demonstrate to be true even if it was true.
Your "Have a jet of air blowing straight up your ass." is your fantasy and COMPLETELY USELESS in discussing the true form of the earth.
I am saying "outer space" is bullshit.
I am saying "zero vaccum chamber" is non-existent bullshit.
I am saying "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." is more bullshit.
Message to true-earthers:
Air is constantly moving laterally as well as up and down.
The apple falls down to the ground because air CAN NOT "blow straight up" even if you forced it.
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
The word "weight" is defined as such. There is no causality.
Have a jet of air blowing straight up.
Able???????????
Come back when you have (a) constructed such a magical jet and (b) proven it is blowing air "straight" up.
HINT: Do not bother. It is impossible to construct what you propose as an experiment and your proposal has NO BEARING upon reality.
Message to honest true-earthers:
The true form of the earth is not a function of any answers to ridiculous and irrelevent questions.
Are you saying you can't point a desk fan up?
No.
I am saying that you can "point a desk fan up" all you want but you are NEVER going to "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." Your bullshit experiment is both a physical impossibility and a a dead end, even if it was possible to execute.
I am saying your instruction "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." is pure fantasy. It is impossible to do and impossible to demonstrate to be true even if it was true.
Your "Have a jet of air blowing straight up your ass." is your fantasy and COMPLETELY USELESS in discussing the true form of the earth.
I am saying "outer space" is bullshit.
I am saying "zero vaccum chamber" is non-existent bullshit.
I am saying "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." is more bullshit.
Message to true-earthers:
Air is constantly moving laterally as well as up and down.
The apple falls down to the ground because air CAN NOT "blow straight up" even if you forced it.
So if you blow through a straw that is pointing straight up, where is the air going?
Because you can definitely blow through a straw straight up.
-
I'll change my question a bit.
I have an object it can weigh what ever you want to and looks similar to this:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRz9tRzkHWiy3ZnQCUSO4lSvhfN-Ic7DC-LcSS6nkPJYW7adbyx)
If I use a hydraulic piston with a variable pump and I place it first so it can push the weight sideways and then place it underneath to lift the weight.
The piston will be placed on the weight on the left side as pictured to push it sideways. Then directly underneath as pictured to push it up.
I increase the pressure both times until the weight is pushed. Which would require me to increase the pressure more to move the weight?
Assuming the answer given to my question about the refrigerator it should require more force to move the weight sideways. Since there is more surface area resisting the movement of the weight.
If this is incorrect then you need a solid answer as to why air pressure only pushes down and not affect things moving laterally.
Of course you also need a good explanation as to why the atmosphere is denser at lower altitudes. Then what is keeping it from just floating away from Earth. If you believe in a dome that would answer what keeps it on Earth.
-
If the atmosphere is held on by a dome, then why isn't all the air spread out evenly (as every gas experiment ever says it should)
-
If the atmosphere is held on by a dome, then why isn't all the air spread out evenly (as every gas experiment ever says it should)
I forgot to add that bit to my post. Without something pulling down on the atmosphere it should be evenly distributed and not denser at lower altitudes.
-
I am saying that you can "point a desk fan up" all you want but you are NEVER going to "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." Your bullshit experiment is both a physical impossibility and a a dead end, even if it was possible to execute.
I am saying your instruction "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." is pure fantasy. It is impossible to do and impossible to demonstrate to be true even if it was true.
Your "Have a jet of air blowing straight up your ass." is your fantasy and COMPLETELY USELESS in discussing the true form of the earth.
I am saying "outer space" is bullshit.
I am saying "zero vaccum chamber" is non-existent bullshit.
I am saying "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." is more bullshit.
Message to true-earthers:
Air is constantly moving laterally as well as up and down.
The apple falls down to the ground because air CAN NOT "blow straight up" even if you forced it.
Did some village lose their idiot recently? I think I found him. Either that, or this post is a candidate for the most obvious troll of the month.
Air can't blow straight up?... wow, the flat earth community must be proud to have such people in their midst.
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
The word "weight" is defined as such. There is no causality.
Have a jet of air blowing straight up.
Able???????????
Come back when you have (a) constructed such a magical jet and (b) proven it is blowing air "straight" up.
HINT: Do not bother. It is impossible to construct what you propose as an experiment and your proposal has NO BEARING upon reality.
Message to honest true-earthers:
The true form of the earth is not a function of any answers to ridiculous and irrelevent questions.
Are you saying you can't point a desk fan up?
No.
I am saying that you can "point a desk fan up" all you want but you are NEVER going to "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." Your bullshit experiment is both a physical impossibility and a a dead end, even if it was possible to execute.
I am saying your instruction "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." is pure fantasy. It is impossible to do and impossible to demonstrate to be true even if it was true.
Your "Have a jet of air blowing straight up your ass." is your fantasy and COMPLETELY USELESS in discussing the true form of the earth.
I am saying "outer space" is bullshit.
I am saying "zero vaccum chamber" is non-existent bullshit.
I am saying "Have a jet of air blowing straight up." is more bullshit.
Message to true-earthers:
Air is constantly moving laterally as well as up and down.
The apple falls down to the ground because air CAN NOT "blow straight up" even if you forced it.
I can blow air straight up, such that a light object like a piece of paper or cardboard or a ping pong ball hovers above the ground for as long as I keep up the air flow.
Are you denying that this is possible? Or are you saying that when I do this, what is happening is something different than what I am describing?
-
OMG! I can't believe my eyes!! Now the whole world changed upside down for me!! God doesn't exist! The Earth is Flat! Instead of water there is whiskey in the oceans! I'll go swimming...
-
I'm honestly trying to understand what you're telling me.
You said I would feel more force from the wind in sticking a piece of metal out the window than a piece of cardboard of the same area. Or did I misunderstand?
This should be obvious to you.
And the scale spring compresses more for the metal block than the cardboard block because the air is exerting more force on it. Or did I misunderstand?
I don't know what you're trying to say.
But you are also saying that if I blow on both a piece of cardboard and a piece of metal that I will measure the same force. Right?
No, I never said that. This is where you have to try to understand what I'm telling you and not try to twist it, whether you're being deliberate or not.
It seems like air is pushing harder on the metal some of the time but not any harder other times, and I haven't figured out how you are deciding which is which.
Try and make a better analogy as to what you think I'm saying to what you are saying.
What I am trying to do is find a controlled laboratory experiment where the gravity model and the air pressure model make measurably different predictions. It would help if you could explain why, when the air pressing on the cardboard sheet from below pushes just as hard as the air pushing it from above, the same would not be true for the metal sheet.
You are confusing yourself and me to be fair. Try something that is more easier for me to explain to you so you can grasp it.
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
Bad analogy. The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth. The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.
-
If the atmosphere is held on by a dome, then why isn't all the air spread out evenly (as every gas experiment ever says it should)
The atmosphere isn't held on by a dome. The dome is the natural ending to a stacked molecule mass by greater expansion as the stack is built up.
The dome isn't solid. It's a constantly moving dome, sort of like breathing due to atmospheric changes or expansion and contraction of molecules, but we won't go into that.
Can you evenly spread out water in a concave pool?
Answer that question then think about a concave dome to out vision/perception, covering a flattish Earth.
-
If the atmosphere is held on by a dome, then why isn't all the air spread out evenly (as every gas experiment ever says it should)
The atmosphere isn't held on by a dome. The dome is the natural ending to a stacked molecule mass by greater expansion as the stack is built up.
The dome isn't solid. It's a constantly moving dome, sort of like breathing due to atmospheric changes or expansion and contraction of molecules, but we won't go into that.
Can you evenly spread out water in a concave pool?
Answer that question then think about a concave dome to out vision/perception, covering a flattish Earth.
So the dome is more like a soap skin than a solid structure?
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
Bad analogy. The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth. The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.
Wrong. And for that reason and the fact you're not interested in grasping it, you're out.
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
Bad analogy. The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth. The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.
Wrong. And for that reason and the fact you're not interested in grasping it, you're out.
You must have missed my most recent question.
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
Bad analogy. The atmosphere is more like having one person on the bottom, who carries a smaller person, who carries a smaller person, and so forth. The problem comes when the "person" at the top, obviously the smallest and weakest, is expected to hold up a huge dome above them.
Wrong. And for that reason and the fact you're not interested in grasping it, you're out.
You must have missed my most recent question.
Yes I did. I was a bit hasty.
Have you ever see inside a chamber under evacuation of pressure where the water turns to ice and then back to water in quick succession?
Think about that happening above as the expansion and contraction of molecules are under the same type of change.. It creates what would appear to be a breathing dome, ICE skin.
-
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
Scepti I'll play, I would think the bottom row of people would experience the most pressure, decreasing until the person up the top, who is under the least amount of pressure.
-
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
Scepti I'll play, I would think the bottom row of people would experience the most pressure, decreasing until the person up the top, who is under the least amount of pressure.
Ok.
-
I'm honestly trying to understand what you're telling me.
You said I would feel more force from the wind in sticking a piece of metal out the window than a piece of cardboard of the same area. Or did I misunderstand?
This should be obvious to you.
Does this mean, yes, I have understood you correctly on this point?
Please note that this is an example where conventional physics gives a different result. According to the model of physics I hold, a 2ft by 2ft sheet of cardboard or metal will experience the same force from the wind when held out the window and so I will feel the same push either way. No difference. So if you claim the metal will experience much more force and I will feel a harder push, proportional to the greater weight of the metal, then this helps me identify a testable difference.
And the scale spring compresses more for the metal block than the cardboard block because the air is exerting more force on it. Or did I misunderstand?
I don't know what you're trying to say.
Scales work by compressing a spring (or something spring-like). The harder you push, the more the spring compresses. That's how we get the measurement of "weight" to begin with - it's about compression of the spring. You are claiming (please confirm) that the air is pushing harder on the metal and the metal in turn is pushing harder on the scale, and that's why the metal compresses more.
But you are also saying that if I blow on both a piece of cardboard and a piece of metal that I will measure the same force. Right?
No, I never said that. This is where you have to try to understand what I'm telling you and not try to twist it, whether you're being deliberate or not.
So please explain what happens. In a given wind, for a sheet of material with a given size, does the wind push denser objects with more force (as I understand your model would predict) or with the same force (as my model predicts)?
What I am trying to do is find a controlled laboratory experiment where the gravity model and the air pressure model make measurably different predictions. It would help if you could explain why, when the air pressing on the cardboard sheet from below pushes just as hard as the air pushing it from above, the same would not be true for the metal sheet.
You are confusing yourself and me to be fair. Try something that is more easier for me to explain to you so you can grasp it.
I use a hair dryer or a fan and blow upwards on a sheet of cardboard such that it hovers there.
It is hovering because it is experiencing the same air pressure from below it as from above. Correct? The two forces cancel out because they are pushing on it from opposite directions.
If I replace the sheet of cardboard with a sheet of metal, will it also hover there?
If not, then it seems like it reacts differently to the air below it than to the air above it. The sheet of cardboard doesn't, but the sheet of metal does. This is the next thing I don't understand.
-
Does this mean, yes, I have understood you correctly on this point?
Please note that this is an example where conventional physics gives a different result. According to the model of physics I hold, a 2ft by 2ft sheet of cardboard or metal will experience the same force from the wind when held out the window and so I will feel the same push either way. No difference. So if you claim the metal will experience much more force and I will feel a harder push, proportional to the greater weight of the metal, then this helps me identify a testable difference.
The force you're talking about is an adage to the actual force that is more or less a (to us) static force of pressure. As in wind or movement into resistance by acceleration.
Basically ask yourself with the cardboard and metal out of the window, which one bends back more than the other?
Naturally you will know that the cardboard will, so that tells you that the cardboard is not resisting the pressure as much as the metal, so more force is naturally felt whilst holding the metal sheet.
However, this is veering off the path because we are talking about the actual density of both materials in displacing the atmospheric pressure upon them without acceleration or wind being involved.
Scales work by compressing a spring (or something spring-like). The harder you push, the more the spring compresses. That's how we get the measurement of "weight" to begin with - it's about compression of the spring. You are claiming (please confirm) that the air is pushing harder on the metal and the metal in turn is pushing harder on the scale, and that's why the metal compresses more.
Try and picture this. Try it if you want to.
Get a bike pump and put your finger over the hole whilst you pump down on the handle. You feel the pressure of the compressed air, right?
I'll leave that with you.
So please explain what happens. In a given wind, for a sheet of material with a given size, does the wind push denser objects with more force (as I understand your model would predict) or with the same force (as my model predicts)?
The wind doesn't push denser objects with more force. The densewr objects resist the force better than less dense objects.
I use a hair dryer or a fan and blow upwards on a sheet of cardboard such that it hovers there.
It is hovering because it is experiencing the same air pressure from below it as from above. Correct? The two forces cancel out because they are pushing on it from opposite directions.
If I replace the sheet of cardboard with a sheet of metal, will it also hover there?
If not, then it seems like it reacts differently to the air below it than to the air above it. The sheet of cardboard doesn't, but the sheet of metal does. This is the next thing I don't understand.
You would have to increase the force below for the metal to match its density.
Imagine you are laid under those sheets. Cardboard first and then the metal sheet. You push up the cardboard and you immediately feel how light it is but also you feel the resistance above is quite easy to overcome because your cardboard bends as the atmospheric pressure is pushed into.
With your metal sheet it will bend much less meaning the resistance on it is much larger.
Also the cardboard and metal sheet (although the same shape and size) are repelling much different amount of atmosphere due to the cardboard already being ,mostly atmosphere within it. It's much more porous than the metal sheet, so is repelling much less atmosphere overall.
-
[The force you're talking about is an adage to the actual force that is more or less a (to us) static force of pressure. As in wind or movement into resistance by acceleration.
Basically ask yourself with the cardboard and metal out of the window, which one bends back more than the other?
Naturally you will know that the cardboard will, so that tells you that the cardboard is not resisting the pressure as much as the metal, so more force is naturally felt whilst holding the metal sheet.
Again, I claim that even though the metal is stronger, the push by the wind will actually feel the same.
Will the push felt by the two sheets be proportional to their density? That is, if the metal sheet weighs five times as much as the cardboard sheet, will I be able to measure a force five times as great pushing against my hand when held out the car window?
Scales work by compressing a spring (or something spring-like). The harder you push, the more the spring compresses. That's how we get the measurement of "weight" to begin with - it's about compression of the spring. You are claiming (please confirm) that the air is pushing harder on the metal and the metal in turn is pushing harder on the scale, and that's why the metal compresses more.
Try and picture this. Try it if you want to.
Get a bike pump and put your finger over the hole whilst you pump down on the handle. You feel the pressure of the compressed air, right?
I'll leave that with you.
And does the force of that compressed air depend on the density of my finger? That is, if I attach a spring to a sheet and blow the compressed air on it, will the amount that the spring compresses depend on the material of the sheet? For two rigid sheets of very different densities, will the spring compression be the same or different?
The wind doesn't push denser objects with more force. The densewr objects resist the force better than less dense objects.
So air pressure pushes dense objects with more force, but wind doesn't?
I use a hair dryer or a fan and blow upwards on a sheet of cardboard such that it hovers there.
It is hovering because it is experiencing the same air pressure from below it as from above. Correct? The two forces cancel out because they are pushing on it from opposite directions.
If I replace the sheet of cardboard with a sheet of metal, will it also hover there?
If not, then it seems like it reacts differently to the air below it than to the air above it. The sheet of cardboard doesn't, but the sheet of metal does. This is the next thing I don't understand.
You would have to increase the force below for the metal to match its density.
Why does the same air from above push harder on the metal, but the same air from below does not?
Imagine you are laid under those sheets. Cardboard first and then the metal sheet. You push up the cardboard and you immediately feel how light it is but also you feel the resistance above is quite easy to overcome because your cardboard bends as the atmospheric pressure is pushed into.
With your metal sheet it will bend much less meaning the resistance on it is much larger.
How about wood and metal, then? Neither bends at all in response to the wind, but the metal is still much heavier.
-
Again, I claim that even though the metal is stronger, the push by the wind will actually feel the same.
Will the push felt by the two sheets be proportional to their density? That is, if the metal sheet weighs five times as much as the cardboard sheet, will I be able to measure a force five times as great pushing against my hand when held out the car window?
No, but you will feel a much bigger force with the metal sheet because the metal sheet cannot flex enough to allow the wind pressure to skim over it, whereas a cardboard sheet would simply bend around your hand and become much more aerodynamic.
And does the force of that compressed air depend on the density of my finger? That is, if I attach a spring to a sheet and blow the compressed air on it, will the amount that the spring compresses depend on the material of the sheet? For two rigid sheets of very different densities, will the spring compression be the same or different?
The same thing applies with the car window analogy.
So air pressure pushes dense objects with more force, but wind doesn't?
No. The object REPELS more atmospheric pressure the denser it is and absorbs it the less dense it is.
Why does the same air from above push harder on the metal, but the same air from below does not?
It's the metal pushing into the atmosphere with the ground as a resistance to that push.
Imagine you are stood on scales and are bent under a low ceiling. You want to stand up straight. You can push up against that ceiling and to do so your scale plate acts as a resistance to your push and gives a reading of pressure, much more than your dense body actually would read under normal circumstances.
How about wood and metal, then? Neither bends at all in response to the wind, but the metal is still much heavier.
Because the metal cannot absorb the amount of atmospheric pressure as the wood can and therefore repels more psi upon is whilst the wood would absorb some of that psi, leaving the pressure upon it, less and therefore less pressure upon your hand or your scale plate.
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
I can't answer that without one important detail; Is something pulling them toward the bottom of the stack?
-
I think charming anarchist just stopped posting. Maybe he realized how stupid his theory is.
-
I think charming anarchist just stopped posting. Maybe he realized how stupid his theory is.
I think it is time for you to stop posting.
-
no. I stop posting at 2:00.
-
no. I stop posting at 2:00.
Just ignore hoppy, he has never been in an intelligent debate.
-
I can blow air straight up,
No, you can not and all sane/honest persons on this planet can see that to be true ---- if truth is in fact what they want to see.
You can certainly blow air up but you can NOT blow air "straight" up.
I have less than ZERO respect for contrarians here in this forum and my ignore list has just been updated. I will continue to benefit from Scepti's and iWitness' responses to your shillery.
The reason I make a point of highlighting your lie ---"Blow air straight up." --- is because I am convinced it is a distraction away from understanding the truth.
I do not agree with ALL of what Scepti is saying about air pressure but my minor disagreement is trivial and in all probability, it would distract other novices like me from a deeper understanding of the truth. I would rather honest lurkers/readers continue reading what Scepti has to say than to quibble with me because Scepti goes above and beyond to lay SUFFICENT scientific ground-work to lead a minimally-intelligent person to arrive at the truth.
For what it may be worth, I am convinced that the reason tungsten "weighs" more than lead is because the tungsten "molecules" resist/mitigate/process/absorb/react to VIBRATIONS differently than the lead "molecules" do. The same goes for air.
Air "pressure" is what we observe/feel but it is nothing more than a resultant consequence of concurrent vibrations aiming to pass through a particular medium while the physical/chemical/magical properties of the medium is simply taking the energy hits.
I hope my addendum does not sow more confusion than clarity among well-meaning true-earthers.
-
There are a few things I still don't understand about FE theory. Scept has stated that there is some sort of dome keeping the atmosphere in, but there are fundamental flaws with this theory.
Absent gravity, air in an enclosed space will expand and fill the entire enclosure. Think of a balloon. When you inflate a balloon, the gas inside has a constant pressure throughout.
Now expand this kind of thinking to a terrestrial scale. If, as FE supporters have stated, earth's atmosphere is contained in a dome-like structure, air pressure should be constant throughout the entire earth, from the ground to the upper limits of said dome. As we all know, this is not the case. Air pressure decreases drastically as altitude increases, this is why Mt. Everest climbers need air supply and also the reason why commercial jets need to pressurize their cabins.
Another issue concerns the dome itself. Scepti has stated this dome is created when hydrogen freezes as the atmosphere reaches into the supposed vacuum of space. Since frozen hydrogen is MUCH more dense than gaseous hydrogen, what is keeping the dome sky up?
-
Now expand this kind of thinking to a terrestrial scale.
You can not do that.
You can not presume that what your tiny eyeballs observe in a tiny balloon is the same as what a gigantic mass will do along the firmament.
For all we know, there are different elements of matter up there that do not exist on earth.
Another issue concerns the dome itself. Scepti has stated this dome is created when hydrogen freezes as the atmosphere reaches into the supposed vacuum of space. Since frozen hydrogen is MUCH more dense than gaseous hydrogen, what is keeping the dome sky up?
--- because it has no place else to go and it is bloody cold up there.
What is keeping the air up at the top of your balloon?
-
Now expand this kind of thinking to a terrestrial scale.
You can not do that.
You can not presume that what your tiny eyeballs observe in a tiny balloon is the same as what a gigantic mass will do along the firmament.
For all we know, there are different elements of matter up there that do not exist on earth.
Why not? In every single experiment conducted, gas expands to fill whatever container it is in. Why would the earth enclosed in the dome of the firmament be any different?
Another issue concerns the dome itself. Scepti has stated this dome is created when hydrogen freezes as the atmosphere reaches into the supposed vacuum of space. Since frozen hydrogen is MUCH more dense than gaseous hydrogen, what is keeping the dome sky up?
--- because it has no place else to go and it is bloody cold up there.
What is keeping the air up at the top of your balloon?
[/quote]
How do you know it is cold up there? Have you been? Who has measured temperatures near the firmament, I would like to know.
Furthermore, what evidence do you have of the existence of a firmament? If there were such a thing, where do meteorites come from?
The top of the balloon is kept up by the air pressure inside the balloon, but it doesn't expand further because of OUTSIDE pressure. What is on the outside of the firmament keeping the earth's air pressure from escaping?
-
Why not?
--- because neither YOU nor your circle-jerk-reviewers have proven that you can.
-
Why not?
--- because neither YOU nor your circle-jerk-reviewers have proven that you can.
Thanks for the continued unwarranted insults. I thought this place was for discussion. At any rate, thousands of scientists have tested air under pressure. It always, ALWAYS maintains constant pressure in an enclosed space, no matter how large. Why would it be different under the firmament?
By the way, the scientific community has time and time again disproven the firmament theory by launching rockets into space, but FE believers refuse to believe in rockets and space travel. Instead they believe in a magic dome that nobody has seen or even gone near.
What do you say to people like my father who, as a boy, watched the 300 foot tall Saturn V rocket lift off up into the sky and disappear? What happened to it? What do FE-ers say about the rocket launches that happen to this day? You realize you can go watch them, right? Where do you think they go? Why would humans waste millions of dollars on some charade?
-
Charming Anarchist is just trolling you. He just sprays insults, and stupid remarks every time he posts, and never brings anything of consequence to any discussion. He can be safely ignored, you won't miss anything.
-
Thanks for pointing that out. Makes me think he doesn't believe in the FE theory at all, since he never actually defends it. Maybe my points are too difficult to answer for a real FE supporter. I wish that, when faced with irrefutable evidence contrary to one's beliefs, we all had the courage to admit we were wrong. Unfortunately some people are so stubborn they refuse to even acknowledge me. I almost wish Scepti would revisit this thread, it is impossible to assume he has missed this thread at the top of the list. Perhaps, even scepti has no answer for the questions I have posed?
-
What do you say to people like my father who,
I laugh in their faces and tell them to grow up.
-
[/quote]What do you say to people like my father who,
I laugh in their faces and tell them to grow up.
Thanks for pointing that out. Makes me think he doesn't believe in the FE theory at all, since he never actually defends it. Maybe my points are too difficult to answer for a real FE supporter. I wish that, when faced with irrefutable evidence contrary to one's beliefs, we all had the courage to admit we were wrong. Unfortunately some people are so stubborn they refuse to even acknowledge me. I almost wish Scepti would revisit this thread, it is impossible to assume he has missed this thread at the top of the list. Perhaps, even scepti has no answer for the questions I have posed?
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Scepti, good morning! Did you miss what happened on the other thread about denpressure? We conducted a couple of experiments. We are awaiting your comment.
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Just to confirm that therefore weight changes with atmospheric pressure.
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Are you using random comment generator? :) There's higher atmospheric pressure underwater.
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Are you using random comment generator? :) There's higher atmospheric pressure underwater.
What are you talking about?
-
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about pressure. Here:
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Therefore the weight of an object varies depending the current atmospheric pressure.
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Therefore the weight of an object varies depending the current atmospheric pressure.
Yep, the scale readout would differ marginally depending on variations in atmospheric pressure.
You do know how a barometer works, right?
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Therefore the weight of an object varies depending the current atmospheric pressure.
Yep, the scale readout would differ marginally depending on variations in atmospheric pressure.
You do know how a barometer works, right?
Evidently, you don't. Because if it worked the way I think you think it works, it wouldn't had been called differently because it's scales. Just... you know... on a different scale. :)
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Therefore the weight of an object varies depending the current atmospheric pressure.
Yep, the scale readout would differ marginally depending on variations in atmospheric pressure.
You do know how a barometer works, right?
I do know how, please give details of a nominal 1kg object varying with typical weather changes.
-
...O-o-o-oka-a-a-ay... If air pressure causes weight, why doesn't water pressure cause more weight? Or if you claim water isn't a gas, why heavier/lighter gas in a pressure chamber doesn't cause more/less weight respectively?
Atmospheric pressure is the reason why everything has weight on man made scales.
Therefore the weight of an object varies depending the current atmospheric pressure.
Yep, the scale readout would differ marginally depending on variations in atmospheric pressure.
You do know how a barometer works, right?
Do you?
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
I still can't tell you until I know if there is something pulling them toward the bottom of the stack. Is there?
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
I still can't tell you until I know if there is something pulling them toward the bottom of the stack. Is there?
No there isn't.
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
I still can't tell you until I know if there is something pulling them toward the bottom of the stack. Is there?
No there isn't.
What's your definition of the word stack in this discussion?
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
I still can't tell you until I know if there is something pulling them toward the bottom of the stack. Is there?
No there isn't.
Then how is there a pressure difference between the bottom and the top? What keeps it from equalizing?
-
Not correct. It's still under equilibrium.
Could you explain?
If you allow atmospheric pressure to expand and exit out of a chamber, it will still leave an equal (all around inside) but less pressure inside of that chamber. So therefore anything inside it is simply still a dense object sitting inside under that pressure.
I would like some clarification on this as well. It seems like a pretty simple thing to test.
Get a vacuum chamber.
Put a kitchen scale in it.
Put a weight on the scale.
Evacuate the air and then observe.
And I did.
So, the weight actually changed? Wow.
;D
-
Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written.
If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.
The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.
Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.
Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.
I still can't tell you until I know if there is something pulling them toward the bottom of the stack. Is there?
No there isn't.
Then how is there a pressure difference between the bottom and the top? What keeps it from equalizing?
10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2 and 1 molecule/s sitting in a stack - which one's sit at the bottom and which ones sit at the top.
When you answer, tell me why you came to arrive at the answer.
-
10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2 and 1 molecule/s sitting in a stack - which one's sit at the bottom and which ones sit at the top.
When you answer, tell me why you came to arrive at the answer.
Either 1 or 10 could be at the ground, and the other at the top of the stack. Let's say '1' is the bottom and '10' is the top. If there is nothing pulling 10 down against 9, and 9 toward 8, and so on, then why is 1 under more pressure than 10?
-
10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2 and 1 molecule/s sitting in a stack - which one's sit at the bottom and which ones sit at the top.
When you answer, tell me why you came to arrive at the answer.
Either 1 or 10 could be at the ground, and the other at the top of the stack. Let's say '1' is the bottom and '10' is the top. If there is nothing pulling 10 down against 9, and 9 toward 8, and so on, then why is 1 under more pressure than 10?
Ok, so your logic tells you that 1 is at the ground and ten is at the top.
I don't think there's any further need for discussion.
-
10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2 and 1 molecule/s sitting in a stack - which one's sit at the bottom and which ones sit at the top.
When you answer, tell me why you came to arrive at the answer.
Either 1 or 10 could be at the ground, and the other at the top of the stack. Let's say '1' is the bottom and '10' is the top. If there is nothing pulling 10 down against 9, and 9 toward 8, and so on, then why is 1 under more pressure than 10?
Ok, so your logic tells you that 1 is at the ground and ten is at the top.
I don't think there's any further need for discussion.
And if I swap the labeling and say 10 is at the ground and 1 is at the top? What is pulling 1 down against 2 and so forth.
-
10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2 and 1 molecule/s sitting in a stack - which one's sit at the bottom and which ones sit at the top.
When you answer, tell me why you came to arrive at the answer.
Either 1 or 10 could be at the ground, and the other at the top of the stack. Let's say '1' is the bottom and '10' is the top. If there is nothing pulling 10 down against 9, and 9 toward 8, and so on, then why is 1 under more pressure than 10?
Ok, so your logic tells you that 1 is at the ground and ten is at the top.
I don't think there's any further need for discussion.
And if I swap the labeling and say 10 is at the ground and 1 is at the top? What is pulling 1 down against 2 and so forth.
No such thing as pulling. It does not exist as a reality. It's just a word to describe what we think is a pull.
-
10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2 and 1 molecule/s sitting in a stack - which one's sit at the bottom and which ones sit at the top.
When you answer, tell me why you came to arrive at the answer.
Either 1 or 10 could be at the ground, and the other at the top of the stack. Let's say '1' is the bottom and '10' is the top. If there is nothing pulling 10 down against 9, and 9 toward 8, and so on, then why is 1 under more pressure than 10?
Ok, so your logic tells you that 1 is at the ground and ten is at the top.
I don't think there's any further need for discussion.
And if I swap the labeling and say 10 is at the ground and 1 is at the top? What is pulling 1 down against 2 and so forth.
No such thing as pulling. It does not exist as a reality. It's just a word to describe what we think is a pull.
Ok, so what is pushing 1 down against 2 and so forth, in order to create a difference in pressure between the bottom and the top?
-
10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2 and 1 molecule/s sitting in a stack - which one's sit at the bottom and which ones sit at the top.
When you answer, tell me why you came to arrive at the answer.
Either 1 or 10 could be at the ground, and the other at the top of the stack. Let's say '1' is the bottom and '10' is the top. If there is nothing pulling 10 down against 9, and 9 toward 8, and so on, then why is 1 under more pressure than 10?
Ok, so your logic tells you that 1 is at the ground and ten is at the top.
I don't think there's any further need for discussion.
And if I swap the labeling and say 10 is at the ground and 1 is at the top? What is pulling 1 down against 2 and so forth.
No such thing as pulling. It does not exist as a reality. It's just a word to describe what we think is a pull.
Ok, so what is pushing 1 down against 2 and so forth, in order to create a difference in pressure between the bottom and the top?
I've just told you. You have to use your logical mind to understand it.
-
I've just told you. You have to use your logical mind to understand it.
All you have said is that they're stacked. In order to have higher pressure at one end than the other, something must be pushing all the molecules in the stack toward one end.
Without that push, the pressure would simply equalize from one end to the other.
What is pushing them?
-
I've just told you. You have to use your logical mind to understand it.
All you have said is that they're stacked. In order to have higher pressure at one end than the other, something must be pushing all the molecules in the stack toward one end.
Without that push, the pressure would simply equalize from one end to the other.
What is pushing them?
Have you ever been in a queue?
Obviously you have, so I'm going to ask you some questions. Answer them honestly.
Question 1: You are in a queue of 200 people. You are near to the front. Everyone is pushing. What pressure do you feel against your back?
A. None.
B. Mild.
c. Heavy.
Question 2: You are very close to the back of the queue of 200 people. Everyone is pushing. What pressure do you feel against your back?
A. None.
B. Mild.
C. Heavy.
Question 3: You are at the very back of the queue of 200 people. Everyone is pushing. What pressure do you feel against your back?
A. None.
B. Mild.
C. Heavy.
-
C
B
A
Now, why are they pushing?
-
C
B
A
Now, why are they pushing?
Because they are stacked and in RESISTANCE to each other.
-
Now, why are they pushing?
Because they are stacked and in RESISTANCE to each other.
Let's look again at what you stated earlier...
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
If I line up 10 small blocks, all touching, which end is under the greatest pressure if all are at rest and not pushing or being pushed one way or the other? If one end is not pushing at the next one in line, then that next one is not pushing against the one beyond it.
The pressure will equalize if nothing is pushing each individual molecule all in one direction.
You said nothing is pushing the molecules, so why is there higher pressure at one end than the other?
-
C
B
A
Now, why are they pushing?
They're in line for free food.
-
I've just told you. You have to use your logical mind to understand it.
All you have said is that they're stacked. In order to have higher pressure at one end than the other, something must be pushing all the molecules in the stack toward one end.
Without that push, the pressure would simply equalize from one end to the other.
What is pushing them?
Have you ever been in a queue?
Obviously you have, so I'm going to ask you some questions. Answer them honestly.
Question 1: You are in a queue of 200 people. You are near to the front. Everyone is pushing. What pressure do you feel against your back?
A. None.
B. Mild.
c. Heavy.
Question 2: You are very close to the back of the queue of 200 people. Everyone is pushing. What pressure do you feel against your back?
A. None.
B. Mild.
C. Heavy.
Question 3: You are at the very back of the queue of 200 people. Everyone is pushing. What pressure do you feel against your back?
A. None.
B. Mild.
C. Heavy.
So you saying air is moving under its own power downward?
I have stood in many lines.
I can be in front of a line and push the person behind me.
Which brings us to the question:
What is causing the downward force? Something has to be pushing or pulling things down.
Lets just look at one molecule at the very top. What causes the downward force is stacking according to your model. What is pushing that top molecule down on the one below it?
-
Gravity produces force that attracts two bodies with mass to one another.
F = (G * m1 * m2) / d^2.
F - force of mutual attraction
G - gravitational constant, (6.67 E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2)
m1, m2 - masses of bodies
d - distance between their centers of masses
While G is hard to measure with same accuracy as other constants,
anyone can see at home if gravity exists or not.
Use this video as setting:
(it is called Cavendish Experiment)
but do not trust it.
There are lot of videos on YouTube saying two oposite things:
Some say "it worked, this is how".
Others say "this is bullshit, nobody did the experiment after Cavendish".
Well, first ones obviously did.
Anyway,
one side could move beam in stop motion,
other side could hide some blockage to the beam.
Do it yourself to make sure nobody tampers with your stuff.
Use objects heavy enough (with enough mass, both on beam and on floor), so they can act in some acceptable time.
Unless your parents are Flat Earthers and won't let you do it.
-
Now, why are they pushing?
Because they are stacked and in RESISTANCE to each other.
Let's look again at what you stated earlier...
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
If I line up 10 small blocks, all touching, which end is under the greatest pressure if all are at rest and not pushing or being pushed one way or the other? If one end is not pushing at the next one in line, then that next one is not pushing against the one beyond it.
The pressure will equalize if nothing is pushing each individual molecule all in one direction.
You said nothing is pushing the molecules, so why is there higher pressure at one end than the other?
Read what I said. I said nothing is pushing on the back of the molecule at the top of the stack.
Your 10 small block analogy touching would only explain dormant molecules.
-
Now, why are they pushing?
Because they are stacked and in RESISTANCE to each other.
Let's look again at what you stated earlier...
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
If I line up 10 small blocks, all touching, which end is under the greatest pressure if all are at rest and not pushing or being pushed one way or the other? If one end is not pushing at the next one in line, then that next one is not pushing against the one beyond it.
The pressure will equalize if nothing is pushing each individual molecule all in one direction.
You said nothing is pushing the molecules, so why is there higher pressure at one end than the other?
Read what I said. I said nothing is pushing on the back of the molecule at the top of the stack.
Your 10 small block analogy touching would only explain dormant molecules.
Scepti you are a giant hypocrite. I have seen you yourself describe the stacked atmosphere with an analogy relating to a human pyramid. Please tell me how these two analogies differ?
-
So you saying air is moving under its own power downward?
It is moving due to agitation of being in a stack when energy is applied anywhere in that stack.
For instance: if one molecule expands into another it creates a push on push, or to us, a vibration.
I don't want to go this far yet because the simplicity needs to be grasped.
I have stood in many lines.
I can be in front of a line and push the person behind me.
Yes you can. Just think about this and you might understand.
Which brings us to the question:
What is causing the downward force? Something has to be pushing or pulling things down.
There's no such thing in reality as pulling. We simply use pulling as a visual for what's really happening, which is a push.
The downward force for the millionth time is caused by molecules compressed and pushing against each other.
Lets just look at one molecule at the very top. What causes the downward force is stacking according to your model. What is pushing that top molecule down on the one below it?
Nothing. The top molecule is frozen. It's dormant because it would be at the top of the stack and under no push upwards, which means it cannot use the molecule below as a leverage to push up because there is nothing to push up against. It's simply under it's own mass being pushed up by the molecule below which is pushed up by the molecule below that and so on and so on.
If you can't grasp this then there's nothing else to say to you.
-
Now, why are they pushing?
Because they are stacked and in RESISTANCE to each other.
Let's look again at what you stated earlier...
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
If I line up 10 small blocks, all touching, which end is under the greatest pressure if all are at rest and not pushing or being pushed one way or the other? If one end is not pushing at the next one in line, then that next one is not pushing against the one beyond it.
The pressure will equalize if nothing is pushing each individual molecule all in one direction.
You said nothing is pushing the molecules, so why is there higher pressure at one end than the other?
Read what I said. I said nothing is pushing on the back of the molecule at the top of the stack.
Your 10 small block analogy touching would only explain dormant molecules.
Scepti you are a giant hypocrite. I have seen you yourself describe the stacked atmosphere with an analogy relating to a human pyramid. Please tell me how these two analogies differ?
There's nothing hypocritical about what I've said. The only issue is in your people attempting to either twist stuff or simply cannot understand basic logic. Pick one because this is what's happening.
-
Nothing. The top molecule is frozen. It's dormant because it would be at the top of the stack and under no push upwards, which means it cannot use the molecule below as a leverage to push up because there is nothing to push up against. It's simply under it's own mass being pushed up by the molecule below which is pushed up by the molecule below that and so on and so on.
If you can't grasp this then there's nothing else to say to you.
I am certain even you would agree that the lightest and least dense gases would be at the top of the stack. Let's just assume that the molecules at the very top are all hydrogen, the very lightest of all elements (although it could just as well be helium, let's just assume for now that it's hydrogen).
Ok, so near the top of the stack is where the smallest, least dense particles exist. These would exert a very small amount of force upon each other, resulting in the lowest possible air pressure the stacked model can produce. Yet to freeze into a solid that can actually form a dome, Hydrogen needs to be under about 160 Gigapascals of pressure (over 1.5 million times pressure at sea level) and at about -260° Centigrade (14 degrees above absolute zero)
Therefore the ice dome cannot exist
-
Nothing. The top molecule is frozen. It's dormant because it would be at the top of the stack and under no push upwards, which means it cannot use the molecule below as a leverage to push up because there is nothing to push up against. It's simply under it's own mass being pushed up by the molecule below which is pushed up by the molecule below that and so on and so on.
If you can't grasp this then there's nothing else to say to you.
I am certain even you would agree that the lightest and least dense gases would be at the top of the stack. Let's just assume that the molecules at the very top are all hydrogen, the very lightest of all elements (although it could just as well be helium, let's just assume for now that it's hydrogen).
Ok, so near the top of the stack is where the smallest, least dense particles exist. These would exert a very small amount of force upon each other, resulting in the lowest possible air pressure the stacked model can produce. Yet to freeze into a solid that can actually form a dome, Hydrogen needs to be under about 160 Gigapascals of pressure (over 1.5 million times pressure at sea level) and at about -260° Centigrade (14 degrees above absolute zero)
Therefore the ice dome cannot exist
Hydrogen in a tank. It leaks - what happens?
-
If the tank leaks, pressure normalizes. The hydrogen reverts to a gaseous state.
-
If the tank leaks, pressure normalizes. The hydrogen reverts to a gaseous state.
Then what happens?
-
...Nothing? I am not sure what answer you are expecting. You broke your compressor and lost your pure hydrogen sample. Simple as that.
-
...Nothing? I am not sure what answer you are expecting. You broke your compressor and lost your pure hydrogen sample. Simple as that.
Where does the hydrogen go to when it's breached the tank. Come on stop stalling. It's as if you're scared to answer.
-
(http://)
-
If you were paying attention I already answered this question. I claimed that once the tank is ruptured, pressure equalizes. Since the tank contained a high pressure system, that would mean the gas would escape into the surrounding atmosphere. Obviously you are too thick to comprehend this.
-
If you were paying attention I already answered this question. I claimed that once the tank is ruptured, pressure equalizes. Since the tank contained a high pressure system, that would mean the gas would escape into the surrounding atmosphere. Obviously you are too thick to comprehend this.
And where about in this surrounding atmosphere would this hydrogen end up?
I'm sat laughing at the fact that you are scared to actually answer the question simply. ;D
For all those looking in, this is what happens when the waters cannot be muddied by these people. They get irritated and start to name call. ;D
-
You started the name calling by calling me scared (for a second time now) even though this is a simple back and forth. You also asked a question that was already answered, but you didn't catch it. I called you out on it in in a rude way in order to retaliate to your rudeness.
Back on topic. The hydrogen, being lighter and less dense, makes its way to the upper parts of the atmosphere with all the rest of the hydrogen.
Sadly, due to the upper atmosphere's low pressure conditions, it will not likely achieve a solid state again until it is placed under high pressure, 14 degrees above absolute zero.
-
You started the name calling by calling me scared (for a second time now) even though this is a simple back and forth. You also asked a question that was already answered, but you didn't catch it. I called you out on it in in a rude way in order to retaliate to your rudeness.
Back on topic. The hydrogen, being lighter and less dense, makes its way to the upper parts of the atmosphere with all the rest of the hydrogen.
Sadly, due to the upper atmosphere's low pressure conditions, it will not likely achieve a solid state again until it is placed under high pressure, 14 degrees above absolute zero.
Have a ponder on this and realise why there is a dome.
-
You started the name calling by calling me scared (for a second time now) even though this is a simple back and forth. You also asked a question that was already answered, but you didn't catch it. I called you out on it in in a rude way in order to retaliate to your rudeness.
Back on topic. The hydrogen, being lighter and less dense, makes its way to the upper parts of the atmosphere with all the rest of the hydrogen.
Sadly, due to the upper atmosphere's low pressure conditions, it will not likely achieve a solid state again until it is placed under high pressure, 14 degrees above absolute zero.
Have a ponder on this and realise why there is a dome.
I am not coming to the same conclusion you are. Care to elaborate your thoughts? How do you know there is a dome?
-
You started the name calling by calling me scared (for a second time now) even though this is a simple back and forth. You also asked a question that was already answered, but you didn't catch it. I called you out on it in in a rude way in order to retaliate to your rudeness.
Back on topic. The hydrogen, being lighter and less dense, makes its way to the upper parts of the atmosphere with all the rest of the hydrogen.
Sadly, due to the upper atmosphere's low pressure conditions, it will not likely achieve a solid state again until it is placed under high pressure, 14 degrees above absolute zero.
Have a ponder on this and realise why there is a dome.
I am not coming to the same conclusion you are. Care to elaborate your thoughts? How do you know there is a dome?
Because of stacked matter. It's been explained.
-
The stacked matter model does not explain why hydrogen can possibly freeze at low pressure. Hint: it cannot. You need to pressurize it at over 1.5 million times normal atmospheric conditions (160 GPa).
-
The stacked matter model does not explain why hydrogen can possibly freeze at low pressure. Hint: it cannot. You need to pressurize it at over 1.5 million times normal atmospheric conditions (160 GPa).
Tell me what laboratory test managed to freeze hydrogen at over 1.5 million times atmospheric conditions?
That's one and a half million times the pressure we live under.
Or is it a guess?
-
Hydrogen was first collected in a solid state in the late 1800s by Scottish chemist James Dewar. I suggest looking him up on Wikipedia, fascinating man.
This is an article about scientists who were able to form metallic hydrogen at over 2 million atmospheres.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2260/20130604/new-solid-form-hydrogen-discovered-extreme-pressures.htm
-
On that note, if you know of any laboratory studies that can prove the existence of your ice dome that would be greatly appreciated.
Or is it a guess?
-
Hydrogen was first collected in a solid state in the late 1800s by Scottish chemist James Dewar. I suggest looking him up on Wikipedia, fascinating man.
This is an article about scientists who were able to form metallic hydrogen at over 2 million atmospheres.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2260/20130604/new-solid-form-hydrogen-discovered-extreme-pressures.htm
How was it collected in a solid state?
-
On that note, if you know of any laboratory studies that can prove the existence of your ice dome that would be greatly appreciated.
Or is it a guess?
Well this is the crux of the matter at hand. It's a case of who you trust with whatever theory.
The whole purpose of the argument is that one group is telling porkies or skewing the truth, Is it me or them?
In your eyes I'm just a lone nut thinking up crap but then again we have your idols (theoretical mainstream scientists) coming up with stuff that borders on the total fantasy to the deliberate tom foolery.
-
On that note, if you know of any laboratory studies that can prove the existence of your ice dome that would be greatly appreciated.
Or is it a guess?
Well this is the crux of the matter at hand. It's a case of who you trust with whatever theory.
The whole purpose of the argument is that one group is telling porkies or skewing the truth, Is it me or them?
In your eyes I'm just a lone nut thinking up crap but then again we have your idols (theoretical mainstream scientists) coming up with stuff that borders on the total fantasy to the deliberate tom foolery.
I would ask "if you know of any laboratory studies that can prove" any aspect of of your hypothesis that differs from accepted theory?
If not, it would certainly seem that you are "just a lone nut thinking up crap" that does not actually explain anything satisfactorily.
-
Now, why are they pushing?
Because they are stacked and in RESISTANCE to each other.
Let's look again at what you stated earlier...
what is pushing the topmost layer of air molecules down on the molecules below?
Basically, nothing.
Imagine you are the last molecule and you're laid on your bed face down. Your body density is being resisted by the mattress and then the bed frame and then the floor and then the joists. Your back and everything facing up has no force upon it so it has nothing to push against. It becomes dormant. It freezes against a true vacuum (possibly) but your front is still resting on the mattress molecule which in turn is resting on the bed molecule which is resting on the floor molecule, etc, etc, etc.
Your back
If I line up 10 small blocks, all touching, which end is under the greatest pressure if all are at rest and not pushing or being pushed one way or the other? If one end is not pushing at the next one in line, then that next one is not pushing against the one beyond it.
The pressure will equalize if nothing is pushing each individual molecule all in one direction.
You said nothing is pushing the molecules, so why is there higher pressure at one end than the other?
Read what I said. I said nothing is pushing on the back of the molecule at the top of the stack.
Your 10 small block analogy touching would only explain dormant molecules.
If nothing is pushing on the molecule at the back, then it isn't pushing on the next molecule in line. If nothing is pushing on the second molecule, it's not pushing on the third.
You have a bunch of molecules in a line that are touching, but none of them are being pushed toward one end.
Where is the downward push and increased pressure on the bottom molecules coming from if the molecules themselves aren't pushing or being pushed?
-
On that note, if you know of any laboratory studies that can prove the existence of your ice dome that would be greatly appreciated.
Or is it a guess?
Well this is the crux of the matter at hand. It's a case of who you trust with whatever theory.
The whole purpose of the argument is that one group is telling porkies or skewing the truth, Is it me or them?
In your eyes I'm just a lone nut thinking up crap but then again we have your idols (theoretical mainstream scientists) coming up with stuff that borders on the total fantasy to the deliberate tom foolery.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994RvMP...66..671M
This is a much more detailed account, but the terminology is a little bit more complex for a beginning chemistry student. That's why I posted the other article first, it is easier to understand. As to the question of who is duping who, I would say that the person with zero experiments proving him right should be the one under scrutiny
I would also like to point out there is no theoretical chemistry involved with the collection of solid hydrogen. This has been done for over a century now. Nobody in their right mind would question the methods unless they don't understand them.
-
I have stood in many lines.
I can be in front of a line and push the person behind me.
I have been in many lines where no one pushes anyone.
-
I have stood in many lines.
I can be in front of a line and push the person behind me.
I have been in many lines where no one pushes anyone.
Hooray for civilised society.
-
Here is a question I have asked before to other people. I notice it is a question FE's and conspiracy theorist tend to avoid answering directly. I decided to try to get an answer again from various people.
@scepti
What would prove denpressure wrong?
-
Here is a question I have asked before to other people. I notice it is a question FE's and conspiracy theorist tend to avoid answering directly. I decided to try to get an answer again from various people.
@scepti
What would prove denpressure wrong?
Legitimate pictures of a rotating Earth. Get some legitimate pictures of a rotating Earth and denpressure would be finished.
Just to let you know. I haven't seen any legitimate pictures or video of a rotating Earth.
If the truth is told, then you know and I know that Earth is not rotating. Earth is stationary. It is a cell that is self contained and we are under the effects of atmospheric pressure upon our dense bodies as everything else is under atmospheric pressures.
Denpressure is real and it caters perfectly for what's happening on Earth. It just doesn't cater for what happens in space for good reason. Space is a made up fantasy that aids in keeping a fictional force of gravity alive as part of the fantasy.
-
Here is a question I have asked before to other people. I notice it is a question FE's and conspiracy theorist tend to avoid answering directly. I decided to try to get an answer again from various people.
@scepti
What would prove denpressure wrong?
Legitimate pictures of a rotating Earth. Get some legitimate pictures of a rotating Earth and denpressure would be finished.
Just to let you know. I haven't seen any legitimate pictures or video of a rotating Earth.
If the truth is told, then you know and I know that Earth is not rotating. Earth is stationary. It is a cell that is self contained and we are under the effects of atmospheric pressure upon our dense bodies as everything else is under atmospheric pressures.
Denpressure is real and it caters perfectly for what's happening on Earth. It just doesn't cater for what happens in space for good reason. Space is a made up fantasy that aids in keeping a fictional force of gravity alive as part of the fantasy.
Rotating relative to the sun, as you know.
-
Scepti did you not follow my links? Did you not research James Dewar and find out his methods for freezing light gases? Did you fail to understand their findings?
We have shown you plenty of photographic proof of a rotating earth. You seem to reject all of them without a second thought. Why is that?
-
Scepti did you not follow my links? Did you not research James Dewar and find out his methods for freezing light gases? Did you fail to understand their findings?
We have shown you plenty of photographic proof of a rotating earth. You seem to reject all of them without a second thought. Why is that?
I reject them because they are not legitimate. They're not real.
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
-
Here is a question I have asked before to other people. I notice it is a question FE's and conspiracy theorist tend to avoid answering directly. I decided to try to get an answer again from various people.
@scepti
What would prove denpressure wrong?
Legitimate pictures of a rotating Earth. Get some legitimate pictures of a rotating Earth and denpressure would be finished.
Just to let you know. I haven't seen any legitimate pictures or video of a rotating Earth.
If the truth is told, then you know and I know that Earth is not rotating. Earth is stationary. It is a cell that is self contained and we are under the effects of atmospheric pressure upon our dense bodies as everything else is under atmospheric pressures.
Denpressure is real and it caters perfectly for what's happening on Earth. It just doesn't cater for what happens in space for good reason. Space is a made up fantasy that aids in keeping a fictional force of gravity alive as part of the fantasy.
How do you know the pictures from DSCOVR and Himawari-8 are fake? Do you definitive proof?
What about Sat TV dishes needing to be pointed at different elevations. With a little bit of math you can determine the location and altitude of the signal source.
You can take advantage of the Doppler effect and determine the altitude and velocity of a satellite.
The ISS can be observed. Just using binoculars you can see that it certainly looks man made and not just a light moving across the sky.
The real question you avoided. What proves you wrong. A round Earth that rotates does not prove denpressure wrong. It just proves the Earth is not flat.
How is denpressure superior to an infinite plane model with gravity?
Here is what would prove gravity wrong.
Not measuring the expected attraction for a certain amount of mass.
Measurements would not decrease as you move further away from mass.
Things would not fall at the same rate.
Things would accelerate at the same rate regardless of the strength of gravity.
The above would disprove gravity. That list could be added to.
So what disproves denpressure?
How about what you think disproves gravity?
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
Seriously? You claim people can not comprehend your model. Even hint that they may not be too intelligent.
Do you not realize a picture from an aircraft watching the world whiz by is rather impossible using the RE model. Are you one of those people who thinks if you hover in a helicopter the Earth should rotate under you?
If you are consider this.
The aircraft is already moving with the Earth when it is on the ground. So it's velocity is the same as the Earth's. So when it starts moving it is changing its velocity relative to the Earth.
You have already been supplied with the photos you suggested accept not by aircraft. You are choosing to dismiss them because they do not support your hypothesis. Unless you have not seen the photos from DSCOVR.
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
You realize that the atmosphere rotates with the earth too? Right
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
Seriously? You claim people can not comprehend your model. Even hint that they may not be too intelligent.
Do you not realize a picture from an aircraft watching the world whiz by is rather impossible using the RE model. Are you one of those people who thinks if you hover in a helicopter the Earth should rotate under you?
If you are consider this.
The aircraft is already moving with the Earth when it is on the ground. So it's velocity is the same as the Earth's. So when it starts moving it is changing its velocity relative to the Earth.
You have already been supplied with the photos you suggested accept not by aircraft. You are choosing to dismiss them because they do not support your hypothesis. Unless you have not seen the photos from DSCOVR.
I'm looking for reality stuff from you people not fantasy.
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
You realize that the atmosphere rotates with the earth too? Right
Does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth at 128,000 feet? If so, how fast...let's say, above new Mexico.
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
You realize that the atmosphere rotates with the earth too? Right
Does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth at 128,000 feet? If so, how fast...let's say, above new Mexico.
At 128,000, there isn't much atmosphere, but it rotates at 1 revolution per day.
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
You realize that the atmosphere rotates with the earth too? Right
Does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth at 128,000 feet? If so, how fast...let's say, above new Mexico.
At 128,000, there isn't much atmosphere, but it rotates at 1 revolution per day.
No more questions. ;D
It's scary how naive you people are.
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
You realize that the atmosphere rotates with the earth too? Right
Does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth at 128,000 feet? If so, how fast...let's say, above new Mexico.
At 128,000, there isn't much atmosphere, but it rotates at 1 revolution per day.
No more questions. ;D
It's scary how naive you people are.
Why did you avoid answering what disproves denpressure? The first answer you gave would not disprove it, only prove or disprove if the Earth is round.
This is a question that I have not seen any FE or conspiracy theorist answer. I have seen RE scientist answer it. They even conduct experiments that are designed to prove themselves wrong.
So what disproves denpressure? If you know your model adequately you can answer this question. It does not mean you are saying dennpressure is wrong, just what would prove it wrong.
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
You realize that the atmosphere rotates with the earth too? Right
Does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth at 128,000 feet? If so, how fast...let's say, above new Mexico.
At 128,000, there isn't much atmosphere, but it rotates at 1 revolution per day.
No more questions. ;D
It's scary how naive you people are.
What was wrong with my answer?
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
You realize that the atmosphere rotates with the earth too? Right
Does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth at 128,000 feet? If so, how fast...let's say, above new Mexico.
At 128,000, there isn't much atmosphere, but it rotates at 1 revolution per day.
No more questions. ;D
It's scary how naive you people are.
Why did you avoid answering what disproves denpressure? The first answer you gave would not disprove it, only prove or disprove if the Earth is round.
This is a question that I have not seen any FE or conspiracy theorist answer. I have seen RE scientist answer it. They even conduct experiments that are designed to prove themselves wrong.
So what disproves denpressure? If you know your model adequately you can answer this question. It does not mean you are saying dennpressure is wrong, just what would prove it wrong.
Nothing will prove it wrong because it''s a reality.
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
Something took from a great height, like a video from a aircraft that is over the equator watching the land mass whizz by at great speed.
You realize that the atmosphere rotates with the earth too? Right
Does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth at 128,000 feet? If so, how fast...let's say, above new Mexico.
At 128,000, there isn't much atmosphere, but it rotates at 1 revolution per day.
No more questions. ;D
It's scary how naive you people are.
What was wrong with my answer?
Nothing in the fantasy world you live in. Plenty in reality.
-
Nothing in the fantasy world you live in. Plenty in reality.
You're just another case of:
;D I reject your reality and substitute my own. ;D
I think I'll stick to my own reality that actually works and really does explain what I see around me!
-
Nothing in the fantasy world you live in. Plenty in reality.
How do you no without evidence?
Saying nothing would prove it wrong is just avoiding answering.
I provided an incomplete list of what would prove gravity wrong. Why can you not do at least that much for denpressure?
If you have a good understanding of your model you would know what would prove it wrong.
If you are open minded and willing to admit you can make mistakes you could give a list of what would prove your hypothesis wrong.
Part of discovery and learning about the world around us is accepting what proves a hypothesis or theory wrong. If not things would likely never advance.
If you can not answer what would prove denpressure wrong how about answering how the currently accepted model makes reliable and accurate predictions?
If someone can make reliable and accurate predictions it is strong evidence they are right about how something works.
Why do you think it is so common for FE's and other conspiracy theorist to answer the question similar to the way you did? If I asked a scientist trying to prove something or developing a model they would give me answer. It is even encouraged to think of what would prove them wrong. Experiments are designed and conducted to prove a hypothesis or theory wrong.
How about tell us what would disprove gravity if you are uncomfortable saying what would disprove denpressure.
-
Scepti did you not follow my links? Did you not research James Dewar and find out his methods for freezing light gases? Did you fail to understand their findings?
We have shown you plenty of photographic proof of a rotating earth. You seem to reject all of them without a second thought. Why is that?
I reject them because they are not legitimate. They're not real.
Do you have any reason why you think James Dewar is not real?
What reasons do you have for rejecting the thousands of scholarly articles that pop up when you search google.scholar for "solid hydrogen" ?
What reasons do you have for rejecting the millions of images taken from space? Have you personally sifted through all of them and found flaws in every single one?
Once again, your post brings up many more questions than it answers (probably because you were being vague)
-
What do you think would be a legitimate photo?
How do you know the pictures from DSCOVR and Himawari-8 are fake? Do you definitive proof?
Just so you both know, Scepti has in the past claimed to own 13 cameras if I recall correctly, one of which is several thousand dollars, yet pretended to be completely baffled as to why the sky "suddenly became dark" when the camera centered on the flame of a rocket and the auto exposure adjusted. There were other instances of him demonstrating he knows nothing of photography, but you get the idea.
Anyways, I'm not seeing an answer as to why the molecules push, or are pushed, downward in his denpressure hypothesis, and I doubt we will get one.
-
I'm not seeing an answer as to why the molecules push, or are pushed, downward in his denpressure hypothesis, and I doubt we will get one.
I have already gotten this answer, let me see if I can explain it accurately.
At the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere, at the very top of the stack, the molecules freeze to form an ice dome, offering resistance to the upward pressure of the atmosphere below.
What scepti fails to understand is the fact that the lighter gases (hydrogen and helium, namely) require very high pressure to become solids. Where this sudden high pressure comes from, he has yet to answer. He avoids my posts like the plague because he cannot answer my questions without looking foolish.
-
I'm not seeing an answer as to why the molecules push, or are pushed, downward in his denpressure hypothesis, and I doubt we will get one.
I have already gotten this answer, let me see if I can explain it accurately.
At the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere, at the very top of the stack, the molecules freeze to form an ice dome, offering resistance to the upward pressure of the atmosphere below.
What scepti fails to understand is the fact that the lighter gases (hydrogen and helium, namely) require very high pressure to become solids. Where this sudden high pressure comes from, he has yet to answer. He avoids my posts like the plague because he cannot answer my questions without looking foolish.
I see. This brings another question to mind... since there is no gravity in his denpressure hypothesis, what makes hydrogen lighter than other gases like oxygen?
-
Hydrogen is not lighter. Sometimes I get the terminology mixed up. I am so used to talking about gravity (indoctrination works!)
Hydrogen is simply the least dense. Hydrogen has no neutrons (which are similar in density, size and shape to protons) and only 1 neutron. It also only had 1 electron, so its total size is very small. Oxygen, on the other hand, has 8 protons and 8 neutrons, making it much larger. Oxygen also usually forms a covalent bond with 1 other oxygen atom, making the difference in relative size twice as large. Think of a beach ball vs a ping pong ball.
-
Nothing in the fantasy world you live in. Plenty in reality.
You're just another case of:
;D I reject your reality and substitute my own. ;D
I think I'll stick to my own reality that actually works and really does explain what I see around me!
You're entitled to do what you want but your mind is robotic for fantasy.
The star ship enterprise works in space and they can go to different dimensions and warp speeds/time, etc. It works on TV but it's not a reality, except in your mind, because it's been imprinted/ingrained/hypnotised into it to make/help you believe in all the other sci-fi nonsense.
-
Scepti did you not follow my links? Did you not research James Dewar and find out his methods for freezing light gases? Did you fail to understand their findings?
We have shown you plenty of photographic proof of a rotating earth. You seem to reject all of them without a second thought. Why is that?
I reject them because they are not legitimate. They're not real.
Do you have any reason why you think James Dewar is not real?
What reasons do you have for rejecting the thousands of scholarly articles that pop up when you search google.scholar for "solid hydrogen" ?
What reasons do you have for rejecting the millions of images taken from space? Have you personally sifted through all of them and found flaws in every single one?
Once again, your post brings up many more questions than it answers (probably because you were being vague)
Tell me of a place where I can see solid hydrogen. Do you know if it can be made on Earth where we reside? Have you see it made?
-
You're entitled to do what you want but your mind is robotic for fantasy.
The star ship enterprise works in space and they can go to different dimensions and warp speeds/time, etc. It works on TV but it's not a reality, except in your mind, because it's been imprinted/ingrained/hypnotised into it to make/help you believe in all the other sci-fi nonsense.
Just like how hydrogen can freeze into a dome at low pressures only in your mind?
I have shown you several studies proving this to be false. You have not responded to all the mountain of evidence you would be buried under if you bothered to search for "solid hydrogen" in google.scholar
But why would you want to look at other people's work? You are the ultimate intelligence on this earth. All other creatures are but idle playthings, twisting in the agony of your genius. You are infallable. Denpressure is infallable. All evidence that suggests otherwise must be false.
Your ego knows no bounds.
-
Tell me of a place where I can see solid hydrogen. Do you know if it can be made on Earth where we reside? Have you see it made?
I implore you. Check out google.scholar
You will find literally thousands of tests conducted recently. Find a laboratory near you, ask if you can take a tour.
Or maybe you should have studied more in school so you could become a scientist for yourself. Then you could actually test and examine gas particles every day, instead of blindly guessing from inside your room.
-
You're entitled to do what you want but your mind is robotic for fantasy.
The star ship enterprise works in space and they can go to different dimensions and warp speeds/time, etc. It works on TV but it's not a reality, except in your mind, because it's been imprinted/ingrained/hypnotised into it to make/help you believe in all the other sci-fi nonsense.
Just like how hydrogen can freeze into a dome at low pressures only in your mind?
I have shown you several studies proving this to be false. You have not responded to all the mountain of evidence you would be buried under if you bothered to search for "solid hydrogen" in google.scholar
But why would you want to look at other people's work? You are the ultimate intelligence on this earth. All other creatures are but idle playthings, twisting in the agony of your genius. You are infallable. Denpressure is infallable. All evidence that suggests otherwise must be false.
Your ego knows no bounds.
You are merely in rejection mode. You have hit the mode where your efforts have to now be channelled into opposing at every opportunity using anything and everything from google, etc.
You still cannot understand what I'm arguing against and it's laughable to think how you and many of your like-minded peers go into super denial mode, rather than exercising your brain and helping to find the truth of many lies - misconceptions - misinformation - disinformation and what amounts to pure fantasy in many cases.
My ego is fine. My arrogance is fine. It's pleasant enough and is required to have in order to ensure that I do not allow myself to be backed into a corner by force of mass opinion of indoctrinated beliefs without leaving myself enough room to always edge my way out to keep coming back at you.
-
Why do you think you are infallible? You yourself have claimed that denpressure cannot be disproven. What makes you so sure?
Can you not see that you are also in denial? You reject literally thousands of individuals from all over the world. Why do you think you are so superior?
I have reasons why I reject the denpressure model. You have met my reasoning with abject denial without reason. Why do you think everybody is lying to you?
-
Why do you think you are infallible? You yourself have claimed that denpressure cannot be disproven. What makes you so sure?
Can you not see that you are also in denial? You reject literally thousands of individuals from all over the world. Why do you think you are so superior?
I have reasons why I reject the denpressure model. You have met my reasoning with abject denial without reason. Why do you think everybody is lying to you?
I don't think EVERYBODY'S lying to me. I understand that many are simply too arrogant to change their indoctrinated stance. I know that many are extremely gullible and naive.
I know that many will be pondering what I'm saying but would rather not come into it because they fear ridicule and bullying by those that get extremely irate and irrational. Like you.
Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.
-
Where have I ever been irate? I am very interested in why you continue to suggest denpressure is without error. I want to know why you reject thousands of scientific papers without even reading the abstracts. You reject any new knowledge because you are afraid it may alter your narrow mindview.
I have demonstrated a working knowledge of the denpressure model. Can you say the same about the RE model? How can you choose which one to believe if you reject all data that disagrees with you?
With every post you prove yourself to be an egotistically unscientific person. No sane person would think themselves infallible.
-
Where have I ever been irate? I am very interested in why you continue to suggest denpressure is without error. I want to know why you reject thousands of scientific papers without even reading the abstracts. You reject any new knowledge because you are afraid it may alter your narrow mindview.
I have demonstrated a working knowledge of the denpressure model. Can you say the same about the RE model? How can you choose which one to believe if you reject all data that disagrees with you?
With every post you prove yourself to be an egotistically unscientific person. No sane person would think themselves infallible.
Then stop conversing with me.
-
I don't think EVERYBODY'S lying to me. I understand that many are simply too arrogant to change their indoctrinated stance. I know that many are extremely gullible and naive.
I know that many will be pondering what I'm saying but would rather not come into it because they fear ridicule and bullying by those that get extremely irate and irrational. Like you.
Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.
In real life Flat Earth model has serious flaws.
South of the equator navigation by Flat Model is impossible. Real positions of celestial bodies are totally different.
Being much older than Round Earth model, FEM should develop much more consistency by now.
It didn't. As soon as big enough part of the world was discovered, Flat model was abandoned for practical use, as worthless.
Ancient Greeks had two options: flat Earth and close Sun, or round Earth and far Sun.
Do you think they were stupid? They noted that if Sun is close, then it would shrink in appearance
when going away from observer from noon to afternoon and sunset.
Since it doesn't, they saw that the Sun is "already too far away for that".
Geodesy actually MEASURED curvature long before NASA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
Church never claimed the Earth is Flat.
They said it is Static.
Those are two diferent things.
Church claimed that Sun and planets revolve around Earth.
Galileo used telescope to observe movement of celestial bodies,
and calculated that actually, Earth and other planets revolve around Sun.
His followers used that to attack Dogma (and Church),
so Galileo was put on trial, where he was forced to abandon his teachings.
Hence the words attributed to him after the trial "eppur si muove" ("and yet it moves").
What do you think why Flat Earth model for Sun behavior has to invent such weird optics,
which falls apart as soon as you include more than one observer from different parts of the world?
Why some Flat Earthers select only convenient facts to prove the Earth is flat,
and everything that disproves it they twist, or ridicule, or declare "lies and conspiracies"?
For example, every video that shows midnight sun on south pole they call "fake".
On globe model everything works well.
~~~~~
In Reply #210 (page 8 ) in this thread I offered easy and cheap practical way to check out if gravity exists.
If it does, why you need Air Pressure to make things fall towards floor?
If it doesn't, what pulls air down to make pressure in the first place?
The same thing that pulls air, pulls everything else together with it as well.
Air itself presses thing from below, not only from above.
And having pressure dependent on depth / height, pressure from below is slightly bigger.
Things will in air lose part of their weight by the same principle things lose some weight in water.
Only in water the weight loss is bigger, because of difference in density.
-
Never. I will continue to refute your points one by one until you leave this site in shame.
-
I don't think EVERYBODY'S lying to me. I understand that many are simply too arrogant to change their indoctrinated stance. I know that many are extremely gullible and naive.
I know that many will be pondering what I'm saying but would rather not come into it because they fear ridicule and bullying by those that get extremely irate and irrational. Like you.
Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.
In real life Flat Earth model has serious flaws.
South of the equator navigation by Flat Model is impossible. Real positions of celestial bodies are totally different.
Being much older than Round Earth model, FEM should develop much more consistency by now.
It didn't. As soon as big enough part of the world was discovered, Flat model was abandoned for practical use, as worthless.
Ancient Greeks had two options: flat Earth and close Sun, or round Earth and far Sun.
Do you think they were stupid? They noted that if Sun is close, then it would shrink in appearance
when going away from observer from noon to afternoon and sunset.
Since it doesn't, they saw that the Sun is "already too far away for that".
Geodesy actually MEASURED curvature long before NASA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
Church never claimed the Earth is Flat.
They said it is Static.
Those are two diferent things.
Church claimed that Sun and planets revolve around Earth.
Galileo used telescope to observe movement of celestial bodies,
and calculated that actually, Earth and other planets revolve around Sun.
His followers used that to attack Dogma (and Church),
so Galileo was put on trial, where he was forced to abandon his teachings.
Hence the words attributed to him after the trial "eppur si muove" ("and yet it moves").
What do you think why Flat Earth model for Sun behavior has to invent such weird optics,
which falls apart as soon as you include more than one observer from different parts of the world?
Why some Flat Earthers select only convenient facts to prove the Earth is flat,
and everything that disproves it they twist, or ridicule, or declare "lies and conspiracies"?
For example, every video that shows midnight sun on south pole they call "fake".
On globe model everything works well.
~~~~~
In Reply #210 (page 8 ) in this thread I offered easy and cheap practical way to check out if gravity exists.
If it does, why you need Air Pressure to make things fall towards floor?
If it doesn't, what pulls air down to make pressure in the first place?
The same thing that pulls air, pulls everything else together with it as well.
Air itself presses thing from below, not only from above.
And having pressure dependent on depth / height, pressure from below is slightly bigger.
Things will in air lose part of their weight by the same principle things lose some weight in water.
Only in water the weight loss is bigger, because of difference in density.
It'll help you if you read through what's been said.
-
Scepti why don't you read anything that isn't related to denpressure? I gave you lots of reading material. How could you be so biased as to judge something you refuse to try to understand?
At least I have a working understanding of the theories of denpressure.
What makes you think you are incapable of being wrong?
-
Combines all the knowledge in one place
-
It'll help you if you read through what's been said.
"Help" me how?
Wishfull thinking about "there is no pull"?
"Compressed molecules" without any force that will compress them?
What will stop them from simply scatter around thousands of years ago?
Higher molecules will press lower ones, and lower molecules will not push higher ones away?
Without force to pull them towards surface they will just float there without pressing anything.
Like soap bubbles.
Like boiled and peeled eggs in water.
Or vinegar.
So, reading inconsistent things like that again in dosens of posts will "help me",
and you are afraid of understandin one or two things that, for a change,
would require you to read one or two posts written by someone other than you?
-
In his model, the particles at the very top of the stack simply freeze into a dome, providing resistance to the upward force of the stack.
He fails to realize the fact that this cannot happen. Hydrogen and helium must be kept at very high pressures in order to maintain a shape consistent with this model.
Not to mention the fact that helium must be kept at less than 1 degree above absolute zero to maintain solid form.
He rejects all of these facts as lies and deceit, so that his fragile "theory" remains intact, but only within his own mind.
-
Never. I will continue to refute your points one by one until you leave this site in shame.
WOW!!! And so it has been spoken!!
-
Never. I will continue to refute your points one by one until you leave this site in shame.
Leaving the site could happen. Leaving it in shame will never happen.
-
It'll help you if you read through what's been said.
"Help" me how?
Wishfull thinking about "there is no pull"?
"Compressed molecules" without any force that will compress them?
What will stop them from simply scatter around thousands of years ago?
Higher molecules will press lower ones, and lower molecules will not push higher ones away?
Without force to pull them towards surface they will just float there without pressing anything.
Like soap bubbles.
Like boiled and peeled eggs in water.
Or vinegar.
So, reading inconsistent things like that again in dosens of posts will "help me",
and you are afraid of understandin one or two things that, for a change,
would require you to read one or two posts written by someone other than you?
The fact that you rant on and on without even thinking on it, means you have zero chance of understanding it.
Come back when you're a bit calmer and willing to try to understand.
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
It would have saved a lot of time if someone had simply answered the question
"How does Air Pressure cause weight?"
with a simple categorical "Air pressure does not cause weight".
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
It would have saved a lot of time if someone had simply answered the question
"How does Air Pressure cause weight?"
with a simple categorical "Air pressure does not cause weight".
But that wouldn't be a truthful answer.
-
The fact that you rant on and on without even thinking on it, means you have zero chance of understanding it.
Come back when you're a bit calmer and willing to try to understand.
Oh, I understood much better than you would like me to.
Go back to that video with scale in vacuum chamber.
Tell me how much the weight changed in reality.
How much that weight SHOULD change in your theory?
How big is the difference?
Dare you to do it.
-
The fact that you rant on and on without even thinking on it, means you have zero chance of understanding it.
Come back when you're a bit calmer and willing to try to understand.
Oh, I understood much better than you would like me to.
Go back to that video with scale in vacuum chamber.
Tell me how much the weight changed in reality.
How much that weight SHOULD change in your theory?
How big is the difference?
Dare you to do it.
How about you get a chamber and evacuate it all and follow my experiments to the letter. Are you game?
-
Oh, I understood much better than you would like me to.
Go back to that video with scale in vacuum chamber.
Tell me how much the weight changed in reality.
How much that weight SHOULD change in your theory?
How big is the difference?
Dare you to do it.
How about you get a chamber and evacuate it all and follow my experiments to the letter. Are you game?
Ok, teel me the letter.
Let's both do it together, and compare the results.
-
Oh, I understood much better than you would like me to.
Go back to that video with scale in vacuum chamber.
Tell me how much the weight changed in reality.
How much that weight SHOULD change in your theory?
How big is the difference?
Dare you to do it.
How about you get a chamber and evacuate it all and follow my experiments to the letter. Are you game?
Ok, teel me the letter.
Let's both do it together, and compare the results.
Show me your set up.
-
Oh, I understood much better than you would like me to.
Go back to that video with scale in vacuum chamber.
Tell me how much the weight changed in reality.
How much that weight SHOULD change in your theory?
How big is the difference?
Dare you to do it.
How about you get a chamber and evacuate it all and follow my experiments to the letter. Are you game?
Ok, teel me the letter.
Let's both do it together, and compare the results.
Show me your set up.
I will as soon as I get the chamber.
For now I have INSTEN digital scale of 1000g capacity and 0.1g resolution, bought at Staples for $12.5.
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
It would have saved a lot of time if someone had simply answered the question
"How does Air Pressure cause weight?"
with a simple categorical "Air pressure does not cause weight".
But that wouldn't be a truthful answer.
If air pressure causes weight then why does it not vary with the daily changes in atmospheric pressure?
-
How does Air Pressure cause weight?
It would have saved a lot of time if someone had simply answered the question
"How does Air Pressure cause weight?"
with a simple categorical "Air pressure does not cause weight".
But that wouldn't be a truthful answer.
If air pressure causes weight then why does it not vary with the daily changes in atmospheric pressure?
Take one aluminum cube exactly 1 decimeter in size.
Take another lead cube, also exactly 1 decimeter in size.
Air doesn't penetrate either.
Only surface pressure.
Same volumes, asme surface areas.
On same area there is same air pressure.
And yet,
aluminum cube weighs 2.70 kilograms
and lead cube 11.36 kilograms.
-
Take one aluminum cube exactly 1 decimeter in size.
Take another lead cube, also exactly 1 decimeter in size.
Air doesn't penetrate either.
Only surface pressure.
Same volumes, asme surface areas.
On same area there is same air pressure.
And yet,
aluminum cube weighs 2.70 kilograms
and lead cube 11.36 kilograms.
He will claim that air does in fact penetrate aluminum. This is impossible because then aluminum air tanks would be constantly leaky.
-
Never. I will continue to refute your points one by one until you leave this site in shame.
Leaving the site could happen. Leaving it in shame will never happen.
If you feel no shame for thinking yourself some kind of omnipresent God, then the rest of us will feel shame for you.
-
Take one aluminum cube exactly 1 decimeter in size.
Take another lead cube, also exactly 1 decimeter in size.
Air doesn't penetrate either.
Only surface pressure.
Same volumes, asme surface areas.
On same area there is same air pressure.
And yet,
aluminum cube weighs 2.70 kilograms
and lead cube 11.36 kilograms.
He will claim that air does in fact penetrate aluminum. This is impossible because then aluminum air tanks would be constantly leaky.
You people call it atomic mass but it;s simply saturation or porousity of metals or whatever.
Tell me something. Why does a balloon stretch and what is happening as it does stretch as opposed to it being deflated?
-
If aluminum is "porous or saturated or whatever" (very defined, scientific terminology btw) how can it form a sealed tank?
-
Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.
How do we know that you are not lying?
At least the dogmatic propaganda machine known as "Modern Science" has repeatable, verifiable exeriments. Can you say the same?
-
If aluminum is "porous or saturated or whatever" (very defined, scientific terminology btw) how can it form a sealed tank?
Because the tank is not a porous tea bag. The atmosphere is already trapped within the metal.
The molecules trapped in the metal are much smaller than the atmospheric or water molecules that are up against the tank, so it stays air tight as we perceive it.
-
Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.
How do we know that you are not lying?
At least the dogmatic propaganda machine known as "Modern Science" has repeatable, verifiable exeriments. Can you say the same?
You won't know if I'm lying or not until you can understand what I'm saying and you honestly are clearly not understanding anything, even after all this time.
Hand waving and screaming will not hasten your absorption of what I'm saying. You really have to want to take it in instead of fighting against it, without actually knowing what you're fighting against.
-
I am not hand waving or screaming. I am simply asking normal questions. I have heard all your theories. I have demonstrated the fact that I can clearly articulate your theories to others. Yet you still claim"You know nothing, Jon Snow." What exactly am I still missing?
-
Cathode Ray Tube worked in TV sets for almost a century before it was replaced by current thin screens.
Some of tubes actally worked for decades, especially if TV was watched just a few hours a day.
Vacuum in CRT is mandatory. The electron beam that draws picture on screen (front surface of CRT) must go freely inside.
For decades no gasses were entering such Tubes, keeping internal vacuum preserved.
So, glass is good barrier against atmosphere.
Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.
What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?
~~~~~
BTW, I didn't give up obtaining vacuum chamber.
-
Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.
You won't know if I'm lying or not until you can understand what I'm saying and you honestly are clearly not understanding anything, even after all this time.
Hand waving and screaming will not hasten your absorption of what I'm saying. You really have to want to take it in instead of fighting against it, without actually knowing what you're fighting against.
I wonder if you realize how hypocritical you are being. How can you claim the RE model is false if you do not understand it?
You willfully resist even learning about it. Why is that?
I may disagree with you, but every single question I ask you is so that I can better understand your model. You have not once asked me a question about the RE model with the intention of learning anything. You give me zero respect.
-
Cathode Ray Tube worked in TV sets for almost a century before it was replaced by current thin screens.
Some of tubes actally worked for decades, especially if TV was watched just a few hours a day.
Vacuum in CRT is mandatory. The electron beam that draws picture on screen (front surface of CRT) must go freely inside.
For decades no gasses were entering such Tubes, keeping internal vacuum preserved.
So, glass is good barrier against atmosphere.
Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.
What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?
~~~~~
BTW, I didn't give up obtaining vacuum chamber.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
-
Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.
You won't know if I'm lying or not until you can understand what I'm saying and you honestly are clearly not understanding anything, even after all this time.
Hand waving and screaming will not hasten your absorption of what I'm saying. You really have to want to take it in instead of fighting against it, without actually knowing what you're fighting against.
I wonder if you realize how hypocritical you are being. How can you claim the RE model is false if you do not understand it?
You willfully resist even learning about it. Why is that?
I may disagree with you, but every single question I ask you is so that I can better understand your model. You have not once asked me a question about the RE model with the intention of learning anything. You give me zero respect.
You need to calm down and stop having a dig and you'll get some respect.
The globe model is killed off with very simple things. The atmosphere to solid on the spin in unison kills it dead before anything else.
Of course it can be argued but the arguments are weak and - quite frankly - pathetic.
-
Then there's the liars and fibbers, or story telling sci-fi writers that probably don't see what they do as telling lies. They maybe see it as portraying something to the minds of those that want an alternate reality but can only have the concept of it through fantasy mind bending/brainwashing.
You won't know if I'm lying or not until you can understand what I'm saying and you honestly are clearly not understanding anything, even after all this time.
Hand waving and screaming will not hasten your absorption of what I'm saying. You really have to want to take it in instead of fighting against it, without actually knowing what you're fighting against.
I wonder if you realize how hypocritical you are being. How can you claim the RE model is false if you do not understand it?
You willfully resist even learning about it. Why is that?
I may disagree with you, but every single question I ask you is so that I can better understand your model. You have not once asked me a question about the RE model with the intention of learning anything. You give me zero respect.
You need to calm down and stop having a dig and you'll get some respect.
The globe model is killed off with very simple things. The atmosphere to solid on the spin in unison kills it dead before anything else.
Of course it can be argued but the arguments are weak and - quite frankly - pathetic.
The earth is a globe. Fact.
-
The atmosphere to solid on the spin in unison kills it dead before anything else.
Could you try expressing your thoughts more coherently? This is pure gibberish.
Of course it can be argued but the arguments are weak and - quite frankly - pathetic.
You need to calm down and stop having a dig and maybe you'll earn some respect.
Gotta give respect to get it.
-
...
Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.
What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?
...
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Water inside the bottle is completely isolated from the air.
And yet, it has weight and adds it to the glass bottle.
How?
What causes the weight of that water?
-
...
Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.
What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?
...
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Water inside the bottle is completely isolated from the air.
And yet, it has weight and adds it to the glass bottle.
How?
What causes the weight of that water?
The bottle was empty, right?
That bottle when empty contained atmospheric pressure equal to the external atmospheric pressure, right?
You can now say that the bottle is saturated with air.
The weight is measured on a scale by how much atmospheric pressure is pushed against by any dense object.
This means that the bottle itself is only resisting the atmosphere by the skin it's made from (plastic) due to the inner being atmosphere.
Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).
-
The bottle was empty, right?
That bottle when empty contained atmospheric pressure equal to the external atmospheric pressure, right?
You can now say that the bottle is saturated with air.
The weight is measured on a scale by how much atmospheric pressure is pushed against by any dense object.
This means that the bottle itself is only resisting the atmosphere by the skin it's made from (plastic) due to the inner being atmosphere.
Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).
Thanks.
Considering that, my next step would be slowly
reducing air pressure inside the bottle
and watching how its weight raises.
Meanwhile, I have to resolve another question:
Will bottle with vacuum make it same weight as bottle with water?
Ok, it means I would have to measure how weight raises depending
on inner pressure reduction, and then draw the diagram of dependency.
IT will show if the function is linear or exponential.
Can't do it today, have to work tomorrow, no time to look for vacuum pump and manometer.
-
...
Now, take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access. You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it.
If the nominal capacity of the bottle is 1 liter, it will physically accept a bit more, and weigh about 1.1 kg more than empty.
What caused the additional weight of enclosed water if air pressure had no access?
...
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Water inside the bottle is completely isolated from the air.
And yet, it has weight and adds it to the glass bottle.
How?
What causes the weight of that water?
The bottle was empty, right?
That bottle when empty contained atmospheric pressure equal to the external atmospheric pressure, right?
You can now say that the bottle is saturated with air.
The weight is measured on a scale by how much atmospheric pressure is pushed against by any dense object.
This means that the bottle itself is only resisting the atmosphere by the skin it's made from (plastic) due to the inner being atmosphere.
Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).
You are saying that the air inside the bottle becomes displaced by the water, thereby increasing the internal air pressure, causing the bottle to weigh more? To cause this effect, the air and water would need to be the same density, right?
Are you saying that 1L of water and 1L of air have the same density?
-
You are saying that the air inside the bottle becomes displaced by the water, thereby increasing the internal air pressure, causing the bottle to weigh more?
A simple question. Are you doing this deliberately or are you just not reading?
To cause this effect, the air and water would need to be the same density, right?
Are you saying that 1L of water and 1L of air have the same density?
No. Can you show me where I said that?
-
You are saying that the air inside the bottle becomes displaced by the water, thereby increasing the internal air pressure, causing the bottle to weigh more?
A simple question. Are you doing this deliberately or are you just not reading?
It was a simple yes or no question, no need to get snippy with me. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
To cause this effect, the air and water would need to be the same density, right?
Are you saying that 1L of water and 1L of air have the same density?
No. Can you show me where I said that?
OK so you have a 1L glass bottle. You weigh it, and this bottle weighs 50g. You know of course that 1L of water has a density of 1kg/L. After weighing the bottle according to SpJunk's experiment, it weighs 1.05 kg. Now to your explanation,
"Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water)."
You are saying that the change in the force of the atmosphere in the room is equal to the apparent weight of the water placed into the bottle. Your explanation for this change in force seems to stem from the air that has been displaced from the bottle.
Since density and pressure is the source of apparent weight, you seem to be suggesting that 1L of air has the same density as 1L of water. Please correct me if there's something I missed.
-
Never. I will continue to refute your points one by one until you leave this site in shame.
It's already happened once.
-
If I heard correctly, he tried telling this theory to Wild Heretics and he got laughed off the forum.
-
No, you've got it all wrong.
LOL
When it is air inside, the bottle is pressured from outside and from inside.
Diference is those 50g.
When you fill it with water, it removes air from inside, you have only
pressure from OUTSIDE, and that's why full bottle is heavier.
Unfortunately mercury is too toxic, and too expensive,
so I would leave it out of the experiment.
Just skip it.
-
What would happen if we take a glass bottle or similar an suck as much air as we can out of it? I do not want to say create a near vaccum because apparently that can not be a thing.
Scepti's explanation seems to be the air pushing from the inside of an empty container causes it to weigh less. I think mass plays a role also. So sucking out the air will cause less mass and pressure to be in the container.
Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).
Does this statement mean one reason the bottle would weigh more is that there would be more atmosphere to push against the bottle? To clarify the atmosphere that was inside the bottle is now outside adding to the atmosphere already pushing against the bottle. Leading to the weight increase.
-
Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).
Does this statement mean one reason the bottle would weigh more is that there would be more atmosphere to push against the bottle? To clarify the atmosphere that was inside the bottle is now outside adding to the atmosphere already pushing against the bottle. Leading to the weight increase.
I came to the same conclusion. Good to know I'm not totally crazy?
-
People, let me remind you:
"... take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access.
You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it."
So, if air is somehow still pressuring water inside SEALED BOTTLE, it presses from below.
Please, gentlemen, READ.
LOL
-
Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).
Does this statement mean one reason the bottle would weigh more is that there would be more atmosphere to push against the bottle? To clarify the atmosphere that was inside the bottle is now outside adding to the atmosphere already pushing against the bottle. Leading to the weight increase.
I came to the same conclusion. Good to know I'm not totally crazy?
I think he may have just poorly explained it. I just asked because I am not 100% sure that is the case.
-
People, let me remind you:
"... take empty glass bottle with good cap.
Close it, turn it upside down so every top surfaces are only continuous glass, and measure weight.
After that, fill it completely with water. For example submerge it in bath tub, and close still under water when all air is out.
Keep it closed, so air has no access.
You can even dry edges of cap and seal it with super glue. Super glue gets hard like glass.
Turn it upside down again, so cap and possible opening are below, and measure it."
So, if air is somehow still pressuring water inside SEALED BOTTLE, it presses from below.
Please, gentlemen, READ.
LOL
Look man, nobody is disputing this experiment except for Scepti. Woody and I are trying to decipher what Scepti even meant when he tried to dispute your experiment.
-
If aluminum is "porous or saturated or whatever" (very defined, scientific terminology btw) how can it form a sealed tank?
Because the tank is not a porous tea bag. The atmosphere is already trapped within the metal.
The molecules trapped in the metal are much smaller than the atmospheric or water molecules that are up against the tank, so it stays air tight as we perceive it.
Not really, an aluminium tank is made of nearly pure aluminium or an alloy of aluminium, there's no trapped atmosphere in its crystalline metal structure, none, nada, zilch, nothing.
-
What would happen if we take a glass bottle or similar an suck as much air as we can out of it?
There's no such thing as suck. Everything is a push. Figure this out and you will understand it better, seriously.
I do not want to say create a near vaccum because apparently that can not be a thing.
Not where we reside is can't.
Scepti's explanation seems to be the air pushing from the inside of an empty container causes it to weigh less. I think mass plays a role also.
Nope. I mentioned a balloon and the right conditions to give a sort of buoyancy due to excited matter.
I also said that tests using this method are inconclusive.
So sucking out the air will cause less mass and pressure to be in the container.
There is no sucking. All you're doing with a container is allowing atmosphere to expand out of it by use of energy - as in - a pump.
Fill it with water and you change that to now having the atmosphere pushed out of the bottle and into the atmosphere to push back onto the actual bottle and the contents inside (water).
Does this statement mean one reason the bottle would weigh more is that there would be more atmosphere to push against the bottle? To clarify the atmosphere that was inside the bottle is now outside adding to the atmosphere already pushing against the bottle. Leading to the weight increase.
Let's use water in a bath to explain this.
In a bath you have an empty bottle. You know that in that bottle, is atmosphere. You also know that the atmosphere inside that bottle is acting with the bottle to displace the water in that bath. For instance:, if you keep the bottle under the water, it will displace the bottle and the atmospheric pressure in it, of water.
Basically by pushing it down with energy, you make the bath water rise meaning you have exerted that extra pressure upon the bottle and air which now crushes/squeezes that bottle with the extra force your energy is pushing against that bottle.
Now your energy is your hand pushing that bottle down into the bath because if you didn't do that, your bottle would simply float on the top and only displace the water the bottle is pushed against, leaving the atmosphere inside the bottle to effect what we see as a float, or buoyancy.
-
If aluminum is "porous or saturated or whatever" (very defined, scientific terminology btw) how can it form a sealed tank?
Because the tank is not a porous tea bag. The atmosphere is already trapped within the metal.
The molecules trapped in the metal are much smaller than the atmospheric or water molecules that are up against the tank, so it stays air tight as we perceive it.
Not really, an aluminium tank is made of nearly pure aluminium or an alloy of aluminium, there's no trapped atmosphere in its crystalline metal structure, none, nada, zilch, nothing.
In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.
-
In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.
Why do you always need an analogy?
All this means is the particles are arranged in a very compact structure. This structure is symmetrical and usually forms a lattice pattern.
In other words, it isn't porous.
It's like you hate looking things up.
-
In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.
Why do you always need an analogy?
All this means is the particles are arranged in a very compact structure. This structure is symmetrical and usually forms a lattice pattern.
In other words, it isn't porous.
It's like you hate looking things up.
He can argue with things posted here, more difficult to claim respected sources are wrong.
-
In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.
Why do you always need an analogy?
All this means is the particles are arranged in a very compact structure. This structure is symmetrical and usually forms a lattice pattern.
In other words, it isn't porous.
It's like you hate looking things up.
lattice pattern? Explain what you mean by lattice pattern. Oh and also try again with the crystalline.
-
I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.
-
I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.
So sort of a mesh like structure but on a very extreme tiny level. Is this right?
-
I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.
So sort of a mesh like structure but on a very extreme tiny level. Is this right?
Not quite a mesh. Remember these materials are known for their ability to remain airtight/watertight. This is why they are used in SCUBA tanks.
It is called a lattice not because of any gaps that would be in a lattice fence. The term lattice here refers to the diagonal crisscross pattern the atoms form. This pattern is extremely rigid, uniform, and symmetrical.
-
Crystalline in this case defines the symmetrical nature of the arrangement of atoms.
Crystals like diamonds and sapphires are rated on their symmetry. Naturally symmetrical stones are rare, and thus valuable. It is easier to create symmetrical structures in a lab under controlled settings.
-
I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.
So sort of a mesh like structure but on a very extreme tiny level. Is this right?
Not quite a mesh. Remember these materials are known for their ability to remain airtight/watertight. This is why they are used in SCUBA tanks.
It is called a lattice not because of any gaps that would be in a lattice fence. The term lattice here refers to the diagonal crisscross pattern the atoms form. This pattern is extremely rigid, uniform, and symmetrical.
So it's not solid. It appears solid to your eye and can hold in pressure.
Let me explain something to you, see if you understand on a basic level.
Get a glass and fill it with water. Place a beer mat over the top and tip it upside down.
The atmospheric pressure pushes the beer mat to the glass and no water leaks out even though the beer mat is essentially porous.
However, there's massive differences in porousity in many materials. It jjust depends on the make up.
Put a few dozen pin holes into the beer mat and tip it upside down. It doesn't leak...but why?
Surely it's really porous now?
See what I'm saying?
-
I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.
So sort of a mesh like structure but on a very extreme tiny level. Is this right?
You did note this post: Cathode Ray Tube worked in TV sets for almost a century before it was replaced by current thin screens.
Some of tubes actally worked for decades, especially if TV was watched just a few hours a day.
Vacuum in CRT is mandatory. The electron beam that draws picture on screen (front surface of CRT) must go freely inside.
For decades no gasses were entering such Tubes, keeping internal vacuum preserved.
So, glass is good barrier against atmosphere.
Whatever you say, as "SpJunk" noted, glass is certainly so near to impervious that hardly matters.
Metals (all solid ones that I know of) also are quite impervious, certainly enough to make "vacuum" and pressure chambers.
All your claims of weight being due to the atmosphere "penetrating" metals simply cannot be substantiated.
Especially as the density of the atmosphere is so small. A cubic metre of has a mass of only 1.225 kg, so what difference could absorbing a bit of air make anyway?
Then, as you yourself stated (when talking about water in the upside down glass) , air pressure "pushes" equally in all directions, so how can it provide a downward force?
From all I have seen in this and other threads, denpressure explains nothing. The more it is explained the more convoluted it gets.
Whatever you claim, the kinetic theory of gases explains the behaviour of gases much more consistently than your ideas.
So why throw away an explanation of gas behaviour the does work for one that clearly does not?
-
If aluminum is "porous or saturated or whatever" (very defined, scientific terminology btw) how can it form a sealed tank?
Because the tank is not a porous tea bag. The atmosphere is already trapped within the metal.
The molecules trapped in the metal are much smaller than the atmospheric or water molecules that are up against the tank, so it stays air tight as we perceive it.
Not really, an aluminium tank is made of nearly pure aluminium or an alloy of aluminium, there's no trapped atmosphere in its crystalline metal structure, none, nada, zilch, nothing.
In simple terms and using a simple analogy, can you explain what a crystalline metal structure is, please.
I can do better than that, I can show you what it looks like.
Below is a high magnification image of 99.9998% pure aluminium, note there is no "atmosphere" or any gaps for "atmosphere" in the crystalline structure.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Aluminium_bar_surface_etched.jpg/1920px-Aluminium_bar_surface_etched.jpg)
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
-
I'm sure you have heard of a lattice fence? Strips of wood in a crisscrossing pattern? That lattice pattern describes how the particles are stacked together. It is a tightly packed uniform formation. It is perfect for use in gas tanks because it is incredibly airtight.
So sort of a mesh like structure but on a very extreme tiny level. Is this right?
You did note this post: Cathode Ray Tube worked in TV sets for almost a century before it was replaced by current thin screens.
Some of tubes actally worked for decades, especially if TV was watched just a few hours a day.
Vacuum in CRT is mandatory. The electron beam that draws picture on screen (front surface of CRT) must go freely inside.
For decades no gasses were entering such Tubes, keeping internal vacuum preserved.
So, glass is good barrier against atmosphere.
Yes it is
Whatever you say, as "SpJunk" noted, glass is certainly so near to impervious that hardly matters.
Metals (all solid ones that I know of) also are quite impervious, certainly enough to make "vacuum" and pressure chambers.
All your claims of weight being due to the atmosphere "penetrating" metals simply cannot be substantiated.
Especially as the density of the atmosphere is so small. A cubic metre of has a mass of only 1.225 kg, so what difference could absorbing a bit of air make anyway?
Then, as you yourself stated (when talking about water in the upside down glass) , air pressure "pushes" equally in all directions, so how can it provide a downward force?
From all I have seen in this and other threads, denpressure explains nothing. The more it is explained the more convoluted it gets.
Whatever you claim, the kinetic theory of gases explains the behaviour of gases much more consistently than your ideas.
So why throw away an explanation of gas behaviour the does work for one that clearly does not?
You are miles away from understanding what;s going on. This is due to you constantly try to get kudos for digs off your forum friends.
Learn about denpressure and then come back, or just continue to to shout from a distance.
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
-
So now you think air "atoms" are smaller than metal "atoms"?
-
Not quite a mesh. Remember these materials are known for their ability to remain airtight/watertight. This is why they are used in SCUBA tanks.
It is called a lattice not because of any gaps that would be in a lattice fence. The term lattice here refers to the diagonal crisscross pattern the atoms form. This pattern is extremely rigid, uniform, and symmetrical.
So it's not solid. It appears solid to your eye and can hold in pressure.
Where did I say this? In fact I said the opposite. Please read my post more carefully.
Let me explain something to you, see if you understand on a basic level.
Get a glass and fill it with water. Place a beer mat over the top and tip it upside down.
The atmospheric pressure pushes the beer mat to the glass and no water leaks out even though the beer mat is essentially porous.
However, there's massive differences in porousity in many materials. It jjust depends on the make up.
Put a few dozen pin holes into the beer mat and tip it upside down. It doesn't leak...but why?
Surely it's really porous now?
See what I'm saying?
Except it does spill eventually. That's kind of the point. A rigid stricture such as this will remain airtight for much longer than a beer mat with holes poked in. You need to work on sounding less condescending, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
Are you trying to tell me that those are atoms in that picture?
-
Probably a slightly different material but here's a closer look.
https://www.britannica.com/science/condensed-matter-physics/images-videos/A-high-resolution-electron-microscope-image-of-quasicrystalline-aluminum-manganese/122869
1nm is about the resolution you'd need to see individual atoms and molecules. Check it out. It's a pretty cool site.
http://htwins.net/scale2/
-
And yet Sceptictank thinks those atoms can expand to meters in length.
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
Are you trying to tell me that those are atoms in that picture?
Do you not know what an electron microscope does?
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
Are you trying to tell me that those are atoms in that picture?
Yes they are Scepti, we've been able to do this since 1981, the technology has become commonplace enough that people are building their own STMs (Scanning Tunnelling Microscope) as DIY projects.
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
Are you trying to tell me that those are atoms in that picture?
Yes they are Scepti, we've been able to do this since 1981, the technology has become commonplace enough that people are building their own STMs (Scanning Tunnelling Microscope) as DIY projects.
So what is the mesh structure if those are atoms in it?
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
Are you trying to tell me that those are atoms in that picture?
Yes they are Scepti, we've been able to do this since 1981, the technology has become commonplace enough that people are building their own STMs (Scanning Tunnelling Microscope) as DIY projects.
So what is the mesh structure if those are atoms in it?
Well it's a picture of the boundary so one side is anodized aluminum and the other is unoxidized aluminum. I'm going to guess the neat honeycomb pattern is the unoxidized aluminum.
More importantly though:
The fact that you rant on and on without even thinking on it, means you have zero chance of understanding it.
Come back when you're a bit calmer and willing to try to understand.
Oh, I understood much better than you would like me to.
Go back to that video with scale in vacuum chamber.
Tell me how much the weight changed in reality.
How much that weight SHOULD change in your theory?
How big is the difference?
Dare you to do it.
How about you get a chamber and evacuate it all and follow my experiments to the letter. Are you game?
Do you have this experiment detailed yet?
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
Are you trying to tell me that those are atoms in that picture?
Yes they are Scepti, we've been able to do this since 1981, the technology has become commonplace enough that people are building their own STMs (Scanning Tunnelling Microscope) as DIY projects.
So what is the mesh structure if those are atoms in it?
The left side of the boundary is the structure pure aluminium takes at the atomic level, the right side is the structure Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) takes. The right side appears unordered, however it is a topographic view of a 3d structure made of bonded Aluminium and Oxygen atoms.
Below is a diagram illustrating the structure of Aluminium oxide.
(http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/thumb/7/70/Aluminum_oxide.png/200px-Aluminum_oxide.png)
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
Are you trying to tell me that those are atoms in that picture?
Yes they are Scepti, we've been able to do this since 1981, the technology has become commonplace enough that people are building their own STMs (Scanning Tunnelling Microscope) as DIY projects.
So what is the mesh structure if those are atoms in it?
The left side of the boundary is the structure pure aluminium takes at the atomic level, the right side is the structure Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) takes. The right side appears unordered, however it is a topographic view of a 3d structure made of bonded Aluminium and Oxygen atoms.
Below is a diagram illustrating the structure of Aluminium oxide.
(http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/thumb/7/70/Aluminum_oxide.png/200px-Aluminum_oxide.png)
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
He won't understand unless you give him an analogy
-
Scepti, just to be clear, are atoms a solid mass configured like "bubbles in a sink" with no empty space in between? I seem to recall you stating as such.
-
Scepti, just to be clear, are atoms a solid mass configured like "bubbles in a sink" with no empty space in between? I seem to recall you stating as such.
Yes. Gas particles physically grow in size in low pressure systems, and shrink under high pressure. They press against each other, leaving no empty space in between.
-
So it's not solid. It appears solid to your eye and can hold in pressure.
Let me explain something to you, see if you understand on a basic level.
Get a glass and fill it with water. Place a beer mat over the top and tip it upside down.
The atmospheric pressure pushes the beer mat to the glass and no water leaks out even though the beer mat is essentially porous.
However, there's massive differences in porousity in many materials. It jjust depends on the make up.
Put a few dozen pin holes into the beer mat and tip it upside down. It doesn't leak...but why?
Surely it's really porous now?
See what I'm saying?
Ouch. We have a problem.
You clearly pointed out that atmospheric pressure works up as well.
It presses beer mat up, towards the glass.
That experiment showed another thing:
If we take one single DVD disc, with top and bottom surfaces equal,
and hold it horizontally by the edges, it will be under the same pressure from top and from bottom.
When we release it, it should stay there.
But it still falls down.
How?
Must try to get vacuum pump and see that thing with a vacuum in glass bottle that we talked about.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
Anodizing aluminum allows the material to be dyed. Not all anodized aluminum is dyed.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
I used to think that too. But then I saw this: Interesting stuff.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
I used to think that too. But then I saw this: Interesting stuff.
Watch the video again. Anodized aluminium is dyed. It is titanium that is not.
To avoid making a long post I suggest searching how both are done.
-
Anodizing aluminum allows the material to be dyed. Not all anodized aluminum is dyed.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
I used to think that too. But then I saw this: (http://). Interesting stuff.
Did you watch your video?
He said anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
He explained how dye infiltrates the pores of the anodized layer.
How the dye is locked in by a boiling water bath.
All you need to do is watch your video.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
Anodizing aluminum allows the material to be dyed. Not all anodized aluminum is dyed.
Anodized aluminum that is colored is colored by dye. ;)
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
I used to think that too. But then I saw this: (http://). Interesting stuff.
Did you watch your video?
He said anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
He explained how dye infiltrates the pores of the anodized layer.
How the dye is locked in by a boiling water bath.
All you need to do is watch your video.
Gah! You got me. That's what I get for watching youtube videos in the background when I work.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
Anodizing aluminum allows the material to be dyed. Not all anodized aluminum is dyed.
Anodized aluminum that is colored is colored by dye. ;)
Agreed!
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodizing aluminum allows the material to be dyed. Not all anodized aluminum is dyed.
Anodized aluminum that is colored is colored by dye. ;)
Agreed!
I stand corrected with regards to the process of changing the colour of aluminium, the rest still hold true.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
-
Here's a picture from an electron tunnelling microscope of the boundary layer of anodised aluminium, nope, still no atmosphere here down to the atomic particle level.
(http://knowledge.electrochem.org/encycl/fig/a02/a02-f09b.jpg)
Looks extremely porous to me.
B-But scepti! These images were taken with an electron microscope! Surely it must be faked, because people can't see atoms, r-right??
Are you trying to tell me that those are atoms in that picture?
Yes they are Scepti, we've been able to do this since 1981, the technology has become commonplace enough that people are building their own STMs (Scanning Tunnelling Microscope) as DIY projects.
So what is the mesh structure if those are atoms in it?
Well it's a picture of the boundary so one side is anodized aluminum and the other is unoxidized aluminum. I'm going to guess the neat honeycomb pattern is the unoxidized aluminum.
More importantly though:
The fact that you rant on and on without even thinking on it, means you have zero chance of understanding it.
Come back when you're a bit calmer and willing to try to understand.
Oh, I understood much better than you would like me to.
Go back to that video with scale in vacuum chamber.
Tell me how much the weight changed in reality.
How much that weight SHOULD change in your theory?
How big is the difference?
Dare you to do it.
How about you get a chamber and evacuate it all and follow my experiments to the letter. Are you game?
Do you have this experiment detailed yet?
So if they're atoms and the mesh in un-oxidised aluminium then they must be made up of even smaller atoms, right?
Because those smaller atoms are causing the mesh shape.
If not then explain to me what's going on. We need to figure this out so we know it's not a complete and utter load of old fanny, don't we?
-
Scepti, just to be clear, are atoms a solid mass configured like "bubbles in a sink" with no empty space in between? I seem to recall you stating as such.
I didn't mention atoms but we can use atoms if it makes it all more easily accepted for explanations.
There is never empty space and when I say empty, I mean a true vacuum in Earth's cell. Outside of it who knows what. Possibly infinite similar Earth's - but that's not important right now.
What is important is understanding that gravity is crap and denpressure is the reality of how we exist in our Earth prison cell.
-
So it's not solid. It appears solid to your eye and can hold in pressure.
Let me explain something to you, see if you understand on a basic level.
Get a glass and fill it with water. Place a beer mat over the top and tip it upside down.
The atmospheric pressure pushes the beer mat to the glass and no water leaks out even though the beer mat is essentially porous.
However, there's massive differences in porousity in many materials. It jjust depends on the make up.
Put a few dozen pin holes into the beer mat and tip it upside down. It doesn't leak...but why?
Surely it's really porous now?
See what I'm saying?
Ouch. We have a problem.
You clearly pointed out that atmospheric pressure works up as well.
It presses beer mat up, towards the glass.
That experiment showed another thing:
If we take one single DVD disc, with top and bottom surfaces equal,
and hold it horizontally by the edges, it will be under the same pressure from top and from bottom.
When we release it, it should stay there.
But it still falls down.
How?
Must try to get vacuum pump and see that thing with a vacuum in glass bottle that we talked about.
One thing you forgot.
You used energy to place that DVD into the atmosphere and it's own density is pushing into it which when released will push back through the atmosphere below aided by the atmospheric push above which it is compressing due to your energy applied to holding it.
I've explained this so many times and yet you can't grasp it?
-
Scepti, just to be clear, are atoms a solid mass configured like "bubbles in a sink" with no empty space in between? I seem to recall you stating as such.
I didn't mention atoms but we can use atoms if it makes it all more easily accepted for explanations.
There is never empty space and when I say empty, I mean a true vacuum in Earth's cell. Outside of it who knows what. Possibly infinite similar Earth's - but that's not important right now.
What is important is understanding that gravity is crap and denpressure is the reality of how we exist in our Earth prison cell.
where do you get your rubbish from? Hasnt 120 years of scientific experimentation told you (and everyone else) that matter is largely empty space? Why must you simply ignore and dispute the thoroughly proven? Everything you say on such matters fails even the tiniest attempt and provability while the things you debunk are 100% proven.
-
Scepti, just to be clear, are atoms a solid mass configured like "bubbles in a sink" with no empty space in between? I seem to recall you stating as such.
I didn't mention atoms but we can use atoms if it makes it all more easily accepted for explanations.
There is never empty space and when I say empty, I mean a true vacuum in Earth's cell. Outside of it who knows what. Possibly infinite similar Earth's - but that's not important right now.
What is important is understanding that gravity is crap and denpressure is the reality of how we exist in our Earth prison cell.
where do you get your rubbish from? Hasnt 120 years of scientific experimentation told you (and everyone else) that matter is largely empty space? Why must you simply ignore and dispute the thoroughly proven? Everything you say on such matters fails even the tiniest attempt and provability while the things you debunk are 100% proven.
How can anything operate in empty space?
Just explain it in simple terms.
Don't come at me with this 120 of this and that.
Let me explain something.
You see someone in the distance. Are you looking through empty space?
You see fish in a fish tank. Are you looking through empty space?
You look at stuff under a microscope. Are you looking through empty space?
Just tell me what your empty space is and tell me how it works?
Use your own words.
-
So it's not solid. It appears solid to your eye and can hold in pressure.
Let me explain something to you, see if you understand on a basic level.
Get a glass and fill it with water. Place a beer mat over the top and tip it upside down.
The atmospheric pressure pushes the beer mat to the glass and no water leaks out even though the beer mat is essentially porous.
However, there's massive differences in porousity in many materials. It jjust depends on the make up.
Put a few dozen pin holes into the beer mat and tip it upside down. It doesn't leak...but why?
Surely it's really porous now?
See what I'm saying?
Ouch. We have a problem.
You clearly pointed out that atmospheric pressure works up as well.
It presses beer mat up, towards the glass.
That experiment showed another thing:
If we take one single DVD disc, with top and bottom surfaces equal,
and hold it horizontally by the edges, it will be under the same pressure from top and from bottom.
When we release it, it should stay there.
But it still falls down.
How?
Must try to get vacuum pump and see that thing with a vacuum in glass bottle that we talked about.
One thing you forgot.
You used energy to place that DVD into the atmosphere and it's own density is pushing into it which when released will push back through the atmosphere below aided by the atmospheric push above which it is compressing due to your energy applied to holding it.
I've explained this so many times and yet you can't grasp it?
That is complete drivel and internally inconsistent with your own theory. If gravity is false as you claim and only air pressure holds things down then the difference in air pressure on the various sides of a DVD are IDENTICAL and therefore the forces are equal. It should hover in space. Air pressure doesnt push in a single direction. Air - and all gases - push in ALL directions and that is an immutable fact, like it or not. The air pressure on a thin disc like a DVD is identical top and bottom. When you talk about 'energy' to put the DVD in the atmosphere you ironically refer to POTENTIAL ENERGY, the energy expended to lift an object up against a vector force which is in the case... GRAVITY. There is no potential energy created by simply moving an object in a consistent pressure environment.
So you are wrong.
-
So if they're atoms and the mesh in un-oxidised aluminium then they must be made up of even smaller atoms, right?
Because those smaller atoms are causing the mesh shape.
What? Can you rephrase the question?
-
Scepti, just to be clear, are atoms a solid mass configured like "bubbles in a sink" with no empty space in between? I seem to recall you stating as such.
I didn't mention atoms but we can use atoms if it makes it all more easily accepted for explanations.
There is never empty space and when I say empty, I mean a true vacuum in Earth's cell. Outside of it who knows what. Possibly infinite similar Earth's - but that's not important right now.
What is important is understanding that gravity is crap and denpressure is the reality of how we exist in our Earth prison cell.
where do you get your rubbish from? Hasnt 120 years of scientific experimentation told you (and everyone else) that matter is largely empty space? Why must you simply ignore and dispute the thoroughly proven? Everything you say on such matters fails even the tiniest attempt and provability while the things you debunk are 100% proven.
How can anything operate in empty space?
Just explain it in simple terms.
Don't come at me with this 120 of this and that.
Let me explain something.
You see someone in the distance. Are you looking through empty space?
You see fish in a fish tank. Are you looking through empty space?
You look at stuff under a microscope. Are you looking through empty space?
Just tell me what your empty space is and tell me how it works?
Use your own words.
Wow... I am trying to work out how to explain this using simple enough terms and finding there is probably little chance of finding simplistic enough terms to explain it to you.
we have atoms. they are composed of 63(?) subatomic particles and the vast amount of the inside of an atom is EMPTY SPACE ie nothing is in there whatsoever. atoms do not expand or shrink. Each element (and its isotopes) have a fixed and unvarying size
Atoms form molecules. These molecules do not increase in size unless other atoms are added or taken away to form different compounds.
in gases (the easiest example) the molecules get further and further apart as the pressure decreases until in outer space (a place you dont think exists!) these molecules can be so far apart that there might be just one in a hundred cubic metres. This is called empty space. A pure vaccum DOES exist with no molecules whatsoever, but is hard to do on earth. But a very close approximation of one is possible for experimentation purposes.
Do you actually have a problem with the concept of empty space?
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodizing aluminum allows the material to be dyed. Not all anodized aluminum is dyed.
Anodized aluminum that is colored is colored by dye. ;)
Agreed!
I stand corrected with regards to the process of changing the colour of aluminium, the rest still hold true.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
How does the dye get into the aluminium?
-
That is complete drivel and internally inconsistent with your own theory.
Not at all. It's entirely consistent and I've been saying it for long enough.
If gravity is false as you claim and only air pressure holds things down then the difference in air pressure on the various sides of a DVD are IDENTICAL and therefore the forces are equal. It should hover in space.
The air pressure isn't identical on the DVD. Think about it.
Air pressure doesnt push in a single direction. Air - and all gases - push in ALL directions and that is an immutable fact, like it or not.
Yes it does but only against any objects pushing into it, which is never equal.
The air pressure on a thin disc like a DVD is identical top and bottom. When you talk about 'energy' to put the DVD in the atmosphere you ironically refer to POTENTIAL ENERGY, the energy expended to lift an object up against a vector force which is in the case... GRAVITY.
To get potential energy you must first expend energy. You did that by lifting up the DVD. Holding it is still expending your energy but we would still call this potential energy now because the DVD as a dense object has been pushed through the atmosphere and has that atmosphere pushing back on it's density. Only your grip stops it from happening.
There is no potential energy created by simply moving an object in a consistent pressure environment.
So you are wrong.
Push down on the the chain of the pendulum of a grandfather clock and you used energy to push the weights to the top. Holding it before release and you're looking at potential energy. Let loose and you have the atmosphere pushing back onto the dense weights that are displacing the atmosphere they're in.
-
So if they're atoms and the mesh in un-oxidised aluminium then they must be made up of even smaller atoms, right?
Because those smaller atoms are causing the mesh shape.
What? Can you rephrase the question?
Ok I'll try and make this easier.
If you liken the picture to a honeycomb and the hexagon full of honey if your atom, then what are the outer structures made of?
-
That is complete drivel and internally inconsistent with your own theory.
Not at all. It's entirely consistent and I've been saying it for long enough.
If gravity is false as you claim and only air pressure holds things down then the difference in air pressure on the various sides of a DVD are IDENTICAL and therefore the forces are equal. It should hover in space.
The air pressure isn't identical on the DVD. Think about it.
Air pressure doesnt push in a single direction. Air - and all gases - push in ALL directions and that is an immutable fact, like it or not.
Yes it does but only against any objects pushing into it, which is never equal.
The air pressure on a thin disc like a DVD is identical top and bottom. When you talk about 'energy' to put the DVD in the atmosphere you ironically refer to POTENTIAL ENERGY, the energy expended to lift an object up against a vector force which is in the case... GRAVITY.
To get potential energy you must first expend energy. You did that by lifting up the DVD. Holding it is still expending your energy but we would still call this potential energy now because the DVD as a dense object has been pushed through the atmosphere and has that atmosphere pushing back on it's density. Only your grip stops it from happening.
There is no potential energy created by simply moving an object in a consistent pressure environment.
So you are wrong.
Push down on the the chain of the pendulum of a grandfather clock and you used energy to push the weights to the top. Holding it before release and you're looking at potential energy. Let loose and you have the atmosphere pushing back onto the dense weights that are displacing the atmosphere they're in.
the air pressure IS identical on all sides of a DVD. I think your problem is that you think air pressure has a DIRECTION which in your case is always conveniently down. Thats why no hose can squirt water under pressure UPWARDS, right?
the air pressure on both sides of the DVD is absolutely identical thus meaning that the forces must be equal and opposite and the DVD will hvoer in space. Except it doesnt.
-
How does the dye get into the aluminium?
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/IKa9C91WDCBI.A8ZtYyNRA--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDU4O3E9OTU7dz02NDA-/http://devolpr.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/kid-head-slap.jpg)
-
Wow... I am trying to work out how to explain this using simple enough terms and finding there is probably little chance of finding simplistic enough terms to explain it to you.
Simplistic is the best way. Now try again using baby talk if you need to. Analogies are a good aid.
we have atoms. they are composed of 63(?) subatomic particles and the vast amount of the inside of an atom is EMPTY SPACE ie nothing is in there whatsoever. atoms do not expand or shrink. Each element (and its isotopes) have a fixed and unvarying size
So an atom has 63 smaller atoms stuck to it? Explain in simplistic terms.
So if all atoms are fixed and are all the same size and do not expand or shrink, then how do they actually make up a structure that basically gels?
Let me explain. In denpressure theory, any molecules expand and contract within dense objects, creating more or less push on each other. This can attract or repel as we know it. Basically push together or push away.
To push together as in the case of a window clamp as a big simplistic instance, we can see that the bond to the window is due to the expansion of matter against the compression of matter. Or to us, it's evacuating pressure by force upon an object to add to the external force upon that object, which creates what we could construe as basically GLUED on.
Go right down the scale like this for anything and that is exactly what's happening.
Now over to you with your atoms that basically do nothing and are empty inside.
Atoms form molecules. These molecules do not increase in size unless other atoms are added or taken away to form different compounds.
How can an atom form a molecule if its empty inside?
in gases (the easiest example) the molecules get further and further apart as the pressure decreases until in outer space (a place you dont think exists!) these molecules can be so far apart that there might be just one in a hundred cubic metres.
So tell me how they manage to form anything in space if they're so random.
Let's say for instance, communication from one place to another. How do they assemble to create a wave in your space that is empty with only 1 molecule in 100 cubic metres.
People need to see how silly this all is and get real.
This is called empty space. A pure vaccum DOES exist with no molecules whatsoever, but is hard to do on earth. But a very close approximation of one is possible for experimentation purposes.
Lower pressure. That's all you get in this Earth cell.
Do you actually have a problem with the concept of empty space?
I have a massive problem with empty space. It cannot happen for anything to exist here inside this cell of Earth.
It simply can't, so I can't even begin to follow the gunk you've been duped into.
All you've done is read all this in a book as such and swallowed it all then parroted it.
There's no real thought going into what you come out with.
-
That is complete drivel and internally inconsistent with your own theory.
Not at all. It's entirely consistent and I've been saying it for long enough.
If gravity is false as you claim and only air pressure holds things down then the difference in air pressure on the various sides of a DVD are IDENTICAL and therefore the forces are equal. It should hover in space.
The air pressure isn't identical on the DVD. Think about it.
Air pressure doesnt push in a single direction. Air - and all gases - push in ALL directions and that is an immutable fact, like it or not.
Yes it does but only against any objects pushing into it, which is never equal.
The air pressure on a thin disc like a DVD is identical top and bottom. When you talk about 'energy' to put the DVD in the atmosphere you ironically refer to POTENTIAL ENERGY, the energy expended to lift an object up against a vector force which is in the case... GRAVITY.
To get potential energy you must first expend energy. You did that by lifting up the DVD. Holding it is still expending your energy but we would still call this potential energy now because the DVD as a dense object has been pushed through the atmosphere and has that atmosphere pushing back on it's density. Only your grip stops it from happening.
There is no potential energy created by simply moving an object in a consistent pressure environment.
So you are wrong.
Push down on the the chain of the pendulum of a grandfather clock and you used energy to push the weights to the top. Holding it before release and you're looking at potential energy. Let loose and you have the atmosphere pushing back onto the dense weights that are displacing the atmosphere they're in.
the air pressure IS identical on all sides of a DVD. I think your problem is that you think air pressure has a DIRECTION which in your case is always conveniently down. Thats why no hose can squirt water under pressure UPWARDS, right?
the air pressure on both sides of the DVD is absolutely identical thus meaning that the forces must be equal and opposite and the DVD will hvoer in space. Except it doesnt.
There's more than enough explanation in this topic for you to grasp what I'm saying. Trying to twist it for your own purposes will not help you understand it.
-
How does the dye get into the aluminium?
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/IKa9C91WDCBI.A8ZtYyNRA--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDU4O3E9OTU7dz02NDA-/http://devolpr.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/kid-head-slap.jpg)
So the dye is pushed in by a childs hand. Is this what you're saying or do you have another answer?
-
One thing you forgot.
You used energy to place that DVD into the atmosphere and it's own density is pushing into it which when released will push back through the atmosphere below aided by the atmospheric push above which it is compressing due to your energy applied to holding it.
I've explained this so many times and yet you can't grasp it?
It is not easy to grasp, for one simple reason:
Atmosphere pushes in all directions.
Imagine big crate full of marbles.
When I pushed DVD up, it could have edge up.
Even if it didn't, molecules will flow around and below, fill the gap and stay there.
Another thing: that DVD was produced at altitude of 250 yards above sea level.
It will still fall into the hole even if the hole is 1 mile deep.
It will fall much deeper than the altitude it started to exist.
You see where the problem is?
In that big crate, instead of marbles imagine marshmallows, soft and pressed when moving through them.
They will still fill the gap.
Move through them horizontally. You will still use your energy to place your body (or whatever you move) to that position to the right.
Why atmosphere doesn't use the same principle to move you back to the left, where you started from?
If molecules are pressurized under Dome, they are pressurized by Dome's sides to the left and right,
the same way as by Dome's top "to the down" and by Earth's surface "to the up".
So, Atmospheric Pressure works horizontally as well. And up the same as down.
Why it doesn't produce horizontal forces?
Also, when you cool it to (minus) -196 Celsius, nitrogen from air will condense into liquid and start dripping down?
Why, if it was so comfortable in that place before it was liquified?
Do you now understand why is it hard to grasp?
This theory is new and lot of it is unexplained.
How can I explain it to Mr Bullwinkle?
Teach me.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodizing aluminum allows the material to be dyed. Not all anodized aluminum is dyed.
Anodized aluminum that is colored is colored by dye. ;)
Agreed!
I stand corrected with regards to the process of changing the colour of aluminium, the rest still hold true.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
How does the dye get into the aluminium?
During the anodising process dye is introduces to the aluminium surface, the dye gets trapped within pores in the surface, pores open up during the process and eventually close when anodising is complete.
-
So if they're atoms and the mesh in un-oxidised aluminium then they must be made up of even smaller atoms, right?
Because those smaller atoms are causing the mesh shape.
What? Can you rephrase the question?
Ok I'll try and make this easier.
If you liken the picture to a honeycomb and the hexagon full of honey if your atom, then what are the outer structures made of?
Nothing, your analogy is flawed. A more appropriate analogy would be superglueing ping pong balls to each other on a table and photographing them from above, the space around the ping pong balls is made of nothing, the mesh pattern is purely a product of their spacial arrangement.
-
So an atom has 63 smaller atoms stuck to it? Explain in simplistic terms.
No, an atom is made of up to 63 particle types that are smaller than an atom. These smaller than an atom particles are what we refer to as sub-atomic particles. Examples are electrons, protons neutrons, photons, quarks, leptons etc etc.
So if all atoms are fixed and are all the same size and do not expand or shrink, then how do they actually make up a structure that basically gels?
No, all atoms are not the same size, atoms of different elements have differing sizes. Atoms of the same element are the same size. The size of an atom is determined by how many of the different sub-atomic particles the atom is made of. The table of periodic elements describes exactly this relationship.
Let me explain. In denpressure theory, any molecules expand and contract within dense objects, creating more or less push on each other. This can attract or repel as we know it. Basically push together or push away.
To push together as in the case of a window clamp as a big simplistic instance, we can see that the bond to the window is due to the expansion of matter against the compression of matter. Or to us, it's evacuating pressure by force upon an object to add to the external force upon that object, which creates what we could construe as basically GLUED on.
Go right down the scale like this for anything and that is exactly what's happening.
No, at the atomic scale, the "glue" that binds atoms together is the atomic charge of the atom. It is this charge that is the reason we have electricity, "denpressure" has nothing to do with it.
I know guys, I have oversimplified things a little, but I'm trying to talk to Scepti so forgive me, lol.
-
To put this in context, anodizing aluminium is the process of creating aluminium parts in different colours. The colour is determined by the ratio of Aluminium oxide to Aluminium, different ratios will refract light at different frequencies.
Anodizing aluminum allows the material to be dyed. Not all anodized aluminum is dyed.
Anodized aluminum that is colored is colored by dye. ;)
Agreed!
I stand corrected with regards to the process of changing the colour of aluminium, the rest still hold true.
Anodized aluminum is colored by dye.
How does the dye get into the aluminium?
During the anodising process dye is introduces to the aluminium surface, the dye gets trapped within pores in the surface, pores open up during the process and eventually close when anodising is complete.
Now have a serious think on that and you just might get where I'm coming from with TRAPPED atmosphere.
-
So if they're atoms and the mesh in un-oxidised aluminium then they must be made up of even smaller atoms, right?
Because those smaller atoms are causing the mesh shape.
What? Can you rephrase the question?
Ok I'll try and make this easier.
If you liken the picture to a honeycomb and the hexagon full of honey if your atom, then what are the outer structures made of?
Nothing, your analogy is flawed. A more appropriate analogy would be superglueing ping pong balls to each other on a table and photographing them from above, the space around the ping pong balls is made of nothing, the mesh pattern is purely a product of their spacial arrangement.
What SPACIAL arrangement is this?
-
So an atom has 63 smaller atoms stuck to it? Explain in simplistic terms.
No, an atom is made of up to 63 particle types that are smaller than an atom. These smaller than an atom particles are what we refer to as sub-atomic particles. Examples are electrons, protons neutrons, photons, quarks, leptons etc etc.
So if all atoms are fixed and are all the same size and do not expand or shrink, then how do they actually make up a structure that basically gels?
No, all atoms are not the same size, atoms of different elements have differing sizes. Atoms of the same element are the same size. The size of an atom is determined by how many of the different sub-atomic particles the atom is made of. The table of periodic elements describes exactly this relationship.
Let me explain. In denpressure theory, any molecules expand and contract within dense objects, creating more or less push on each other. This can attract or repel as we know it. Basically push together or push away.
To push together as in the case of a window clamp as a big simplistic instance, we can see that the bond to the window is due to the expansion of matter against the compression of matter. Or to us, it's evacuating pressure by force upon an object to add to the external force upon that object, which creates what we could construe as basically GLUED on.
Go right down the scale like this for anything and that is exactly what's happening.
No, at the atomic scale, the "glue" that binds atoms together is the atomic charge of the atom. It is this charge that is the reason we have electricity, "denpressure" has nothing to do with it.
I know guys, I have oversimplified things a little, but I'm trying to talk to Scepti so forgive me, lol.
Ok then, show me the 63 particle type that are smaller than the atom and let's go from there.
-
Now have a serious think on that and you just might get where I'm coming from with TRAPPED atmosphere.
The dye permeates the surface layer to only a few microns thickness, scratch coloured aluminium and shiny bare metal is revealed. Expose many metals to atmosphere and an oxide compound of that metal forms on its surface, for example expose iron to the atmosphere and rust forms, rust is iron oxide. Expose the metal called magnesium to oxygen in the presence of a little heat and it will catch fire.
(http://)
-
So an atom has 63 smaller atoms stuck to it? Explain in simplistic terms.
No, an atom is made of up to 63 particle types that are smaller than an atom. These smaller than an atom particles are what we refer to as sub-atomic particles. Examples are electrons, protons neutrons, photons, quarks, leptons etc etc.
So if all atoms are fixed and are all the same size and do not expand or shrink, then how do they actually make up a structure that basically gels?
No, all atoms are not the same size, atoms of different elements have differing sizes. Atoms of the same element are the same size. The size of an atom is determined by how many of the different sub-atomic particles the atom is made of. The table of periodic elements describes exactly this relationship.
Let me explain. In denpressure theory, any molecules expand and contract within dense objects, creating more or less push on each other. This can attract or repel as we know it. Basically push together or push away.
To push together as in the case of a window clamp as a big simplistic instance, we can see that the bond to the window is due to the expansion of matter against the compression of matter. Or to us, it's evacuating pressure by force upon an object to add to the external force upon that object, which creates what we could construe as basically GLUED on.
Go right down the scale like this for anything and that is exactly what's happening.
No, at the atomic scale, the "glue" that binds atoms together is the atomic charge of the atom. It is this charge that is the reason we have electricity, "denpressure" has nothing to do with it.
I know guys, I have oversimplified things a little, but I'm trying to talk to Scepti so forgive me, lol.
Ok then, show me the 63 particle type that are smaller than the atom and let's go from there.
Google them for yourself.
-
It is not easy to grasp, for one simple reason:
Atmosphere pushes in all directions.
Imagine big crate full of marbles.
When I pushed DVD up, it could have edge up.
Even if it didn't, molecules will flow around and below, fill the gap and stay there.
Another thing: that DVD was produced at altitude of 250 yards above sea level.
It will still fall into the hole even if the hole is 1 mile deep.
It will fall much deeper than the altitude it started to exist.
You see where the problem is?
In that big crate, instead of marbles imagine marshmallows, soft and pressed when moving through them.
They will still fill the gap.
Move through them horizontally. You will still use your energy to place your body (or whatever you move) to that position to the right.
Why atmosphere doesn't use the same principle to move you back to the left, where you started from?
If molecules are pressurized under Dome, they are pressurized by Dome's sides to the left and right,
the same way as by Dome's top "to the down" and by Earth's surface "to the up".
So, Atmospheric Pressure works horizontally as well. And up the same as down.
Why it doesn't produce horizontal forces?
Also, when you cool it to (minus) -196 Celsius, nitrogen from air will condense into liquid and start dripping down?
Why, if it was so comfortable in that place before it was liquified?
Do you now understand why is it hard to grasp?
This theory is new and lot of it is unexplained.
How can I explain it to Mr Bullwinkle?
Teach me.
Ok if you can't grasp it then fair enough.
-
Now have a serious think on that and you just might get where I'm coming from with TRAPPED atmosphere.
The dye permeates the surface layer to only a few microns thickness, scratch coloured aluminium and shiny bare metal is revealed. Expose many metals to atmosphere and an oxide compound of that metal forms on its surface, for example expose iron to the atmosphere and rust forms, rust is iron oxide. Expose the metal called magnesium to oxygen in the presence of a little heat and it will catch fire.
(http://)
So what are you trying to tell me?
-
So an atom has 63 smaller atoms stuck to it? Explain in simplistic terms.
No, an atom is made of up to 63 particle types that are smaller than an atom. These smaller than an atom particles are what we refer to as sub-atomic particles. Examples are electrons, protons neutrons, photons, quarks, leptons etc etc.
So if all atoms are fixed and are all the same size and do not expand or shrink, then how do they actually make up a structure that basically gels?
No, all atoms are not the same size, atoms of different elements have differing sizes. Atoms of the same element are the same size. The size of an atom is determined by how many of the different sub-atomic particles the atom is made of. The table of periodic elements describes exactly this relationship.
Let me explain. In denpressure theory, any molecules expand and contract within dense objects, creating more or less push on each other. This can attract or repel as we know it. Basically push together or push away.
To push together as in the case of a window clamp as a big simplistic instance, we can see that the bond to the window is due to the expansion of matter against the compression of matter. Or to us, it's evacuating pressure by force upon an object to add to the external force upon that object, which creates what we could construe as basically GLUED on.
Go right down the scale like this for anything and that is exactly what's happening.
No, at the atomic scale, the "glue" that binds atoms together is the atomic charge of the atom. It is this charge that is the reason we have electricity, "denpressure" has nothing to do with it.
I know guys, I have oversimplified things a little, but I'm trying to talk to Scepti so forgive me, lol.
Ok then, show me the 63 particle type that are smaller than the atom and let's go from there.
Google them for yourself.
No problem. I just wanted to know if you'd seen these 63 smaller atoms. Obviously you haven't and are simply going on story telling.
-
Ok if you can't grasp it then fair enough.
Can you?
Where are horizontal forces?
Why nitrogen decides to change its position when liquified?
Why things fall deeper than they were produced?
Don't leave me hanging now when it is important.
-
So an atom has 63 smaller atoms stuck to it? Explain in simplistic terms.
No, an atom is made of up to 63 particle types that are smaller than an atom. These smaller than an atom particles are what we refer to as sub-atomic particles. Examples are electrons, protons neutrons, photons, quarks, leptons etc etc.
So if all atoms are fixed and are all the same size and do not expand or shrink, then how do they actually make up a structure that basically gels?
No, all atoms are not the same size, atoms of different elements have differing sizes. Atoms of the same element are the same size. The size of an atom is determined by how many of the different sub-atomic particles the atom is made of. The table of periodic elements describes exactly this relationship.
Let me explain. In denpressure theory, any molecules expand and contract within dense objects, creating more or less push on each other. This can attract or repel as we know it. Basically push together or push away.
To push together as in the case of a window clamp as a big simplistic instance, we can see that the bond to the window is due to the expansion of matter against the compression of matter. Or to us, it's evacuating pressure by force upon an object to add to the external force upon that object, which creates what we could construe as basically GLUED on.
Go right down the scale like this for anything and that is exactly what's happening.
No, at the atomic scale, the "glue" that binds atoms together is the atomic charge of the atom. It is this charge that is the reason we have electricity, "denpressure" has nothing to do with it.
I know guys, I have oversimplified things a little, but I'm trying to talk to Scepti so forgive me, lol.
Ok then, show me the 63 particle type that are smaller than the atom and let's go from there.
Google them for yourself.
No problem. I just wanted to know if you'd seen these 63 smaller atoms. Obviously you haven't and are simply going on story telling.
If personally seeing them is your ...yard stick, then I'd suggest you spend some time investigating your own assertions until you personally see them as well, no?
-
Can you?
Where are horizontal forces?
They are created when any dense object pushes into the vertical. It squeezes against you as you push the atmosphere out of the way, or compress it up.
Why nitrogen decides to change its position when liquified?
What do you mean?
Why things fall deeper than they were produced?
I'll have to use water to get you to grasp this one. I shouldn't need to but what the hell.
Imagine you dig a hole under water but you cap off the sea bed so no water gets into your hole.
.
Ok now you place a coin or whatever object on top of the cap.
Now pull away the cap and what happens?
The water that was held back now fills the hole and pushes the coin to the bottom.
Just think of doing this against atmosphere, as in your hole digging would be sort of digging in a low pressure chamber and then opening that chamber to the atmosphere to equalise the pressure.
This is what's happening.
Don't leave me hanging now when it is important.
You need to think a bit deeper.
-
So an atom has 63 smaller atoms stuck to it? Explain in simplistic terms.
No, an atom is made of up to 63 particle types that are smaller than an atom. These smaller than an atom particles are what we refer to as sub-atomic particles. Examples are electrons, protons neutrons, photons, quarks, leptons etc etc.
So if all atoms are fixed and are all the same size and do not expand or shrink, then how do they actually make up a structure that basically gels?
No, all atoms are not the same size, atoms of different elements have differing sizes. Atoms of the same element are the same size. The size of an atom is determined by how many of the different sub-atomic particles the atom is made of. The table of periodic elements describes exactly this relationship.
Let me explain. In denpressure theory, any molecules expand and contract within dense objects, creating more or less push on each other. This can attract or repel as we know it. Basically push together or push away.
To push together as in the case of a window clamp as a big simplistic instance, we can see that the bond to the window is due to the expansion of matter against the compression of matter. Or to us, it's evacuating pressure by force upon an object to add to the external force upon that object, which creates what we could construe as basically GLUED on.
Go right down the scale like this for anything and that is exactly what's happening.
No, at the atomic scale, the "glue" that binds atoms together is the atomic charge of the atom. It is this charge that is the reason we have electricity, "denpressure" has nothing to do with it.
I know guys, I have oversimplified things a little, but I'm trying to talk to Scepti so forgive me, lol.
Ok then, show me the 63 particle type that are smaller than the atom and let's go from there.
Google them for yourself.
No problem. I just wanted to know if you'd seen these 63 smaller atoms. Obviously you haven't and are simply going on story telling.
If personally seeing them is your ...yard stick, then I'd suggest you spend some time investigating your own assertions until you personally see them as well, no?
But I can see what's happening. It's complete logic.
My molecules work better than yours. Mine are simpler.
You're working from nonsense stories at best.
I said to Jane that was was going to do a few little diagrams of my molecules and how they react. I haven't plucked up the mind to start to doodle on the ms paint but I will soon enough, just to show what's happening.
-
You could draw thousands of diagrams, it wouldn't change the fact that you can't see what's going on either. Your particles are certainly simpler but they do not accurately reflect reality. To believe particles behave in the way you think they do requires a denial of several measurable facts. You could measure them yourself but you are too stubborn.
-
You could draw thousands of diagrams, it wouldn't change the fact that you can't see what's going on either. Your particles are certainly simpler but they do not accurately reflect reality. To believe particles behave in the way you think they do requires a denial of several measurable facts. You could measure them yourself but you are too stubborn.
You're right about not seeing them in reality. They would just remain a theoretical diagram.
The funny thing is, so is your model. All diagrams and story telling coupled with a bit of absolute bullshit mixed in to dupe wannabe scientists.
It's shameful to be honest.
I suppose to find the reality would be to find the reality. It basically means you'd find out what you really are and where you really are in the food chain of Earth's cell.
Stay ignorant and arrogant for the model bestowed upon you. It's a model that requires no thought. It's clever isn't it. All there on a plate so you don't have to think for yourself.
Want to know why?
Because you're not required nor wanted to think for yourself. Just memorise the models put in front of you and watch the videos and pictures set out for you.
Copy the maths that gives a real impression and bingo, you're a fully fledged member of the INDOC club.
-
You could draw thousands of diagrams, it wouldn't change the fact that you can't see what's going on either. Your particles are certainly simpler but they do not accurately reflect reality. To believe particles behave in the way you think they do requires a denial of several measurable facts. You could measure them yourself but you are too stubborn.
You're right about not seeing them in reality. They would just remain a theoretical diagram.
The funny thing is, so is your model. All diagrams and story telling coupled with a bit of absolute bullshit mixed in to dupe wannabe scientists..
So we have 2 diagrams that are meant to describe reality. To believe one diagram, you must deny the fact that evacuation chambers exist, and the fact that you can build your own.
You must deny the fact that we have been to space, and the fact that you can build your own telescope to observe man made objects in space.
You must believe that the sun and moon are just projections that come from within the earth, despite the fact that you have no evidence corroborating this theory.
You must deny the fact that you cannot make a solid that is less dense than a gas (talking about The Dome here). How do you know anything about the properties of matter near the dome if you have never seen it?
You must deny the methods with which we collected solid hydrogen. Don't believe it? Try doing it yourself, see how far you get.
There are so many things that you have to shut your eyes to. So many things you could check yourself, but you refuse to. You would rather pretend you are some genius. Nobody else could possibly grasp your sheer intellect. You are a special snowflake, everybody else is fooled but not you!
-
So we have 2 diagrams that are meant to describe reality. To believe one diagram, you must deny the fact that evacuation chambers exist, and the fact that you can build your own.
To believe your diagram/thought (bridge analogy) it does mean that evacuation chambers could not exist.
My analogy means they can exist.
You must deny the fact that we have been to space, and the fact that you can build your own telescope to observe man made objects in space.
Absolutely I deny space and anything supposedly seen physically in it. Space being outside of an atmosphere. We must make sure that this is clear.
You must believe that the sun and moon are just projections that come from within the earth, despite the fact that you have no evidence corroborating this theory.
Just a theory based on my overall logical theory of thought.
It's fine for you people to have gravity and warped space time and black holes and worm holes and Higgs boson, etc etc etc etc etc, with absolutely no evidence, except to say there is.
Strange isn't it?
You must deny the fact that you cannot make a solid that is less dense than a gas (talking about The Dome here). How do you know anything about the properties of matter near the dome if you have never seen it?
You need to understand that you do not reside at the dome and never will. You also need to try and grasp my theory and stop stamping your feet every time you get told. You're distracting yourself, whether naively or deliberately. Let's hope for your intelligence that you are doing it deliberately, because if not, you;re taking one hell of a long time to grasp the extreme simplest piece of info.
You must deny the methods with which we collected solid hydrogen. Don't believe it? Try doing it yourself, see how far you get.
Tell me about your experiment to get solid hydrogen. Did you do this at home?
There are so many things that you have to shut your eyes to. So many things you could check yourself, but you refuse to. You would rather pretend you are some genius. Nobody else could possibly grasp your sheer intellect. You are a special snowflake, everybody else is fooled but not you!
I am a genius. I'm a simplistic genius. I see things that many don't. I turn the complicated into the less complicated so that the normal every day person can get the chance to grasp stuff.
I am a normal every day person just as most are.
Those that are not in the category I mention, are those that believe they are top scientists who prefer to follow the round the block procedures of science rather than simply taking the direct route.
the reason why science is made into gobbledygook is so the average Joe doesn't bother to attempt to decipher the reality within it.
-
Your claims about the dome contradict your own theory. You claim the particles at the dome expand to their fullest extent (still waiting on you to tell us how big this is) and then they freeze. These particles FREEZE at their LOWEST POSSIBLE DENSITY.
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
-
Your claims about the dome contradict your own theory. You claim the particles at the dome expand to their fullest extent (still waiting on you to tell us how big this is) and then they freeze. These particles FREEZE at their LOWEST POSSIBLE DENSITY.
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
-
You must believe that the sun and moon are just projections that come from within the earth, despite the fact that you have no evidence corroborating this theory.
Just a theory based on my overall logical theory of thought.
It's fine for you people to have gravity and warped space time and black holes and worm holes and Higgs boson, etc etc etc etc etc, with absolutely no evidence, except to say there is.
Strange isn't it?
No. What's strange is you think the supercollider at CERN is some kind of billion-dollar international hoax, or it doesn't really exist. I wonder what those scientists do all day.
I really wish I knew what kind of "logical" thought would lead you to believe such a massive source of light and heat could be reflected off of a dome that is supposedly near absolute zero. I have no idea where on earth you think these images come from, how they move across the sky, what accounts for all the stars in the night sky, why the moon has phases, or what causes eclipses. All of these simple observations have gone unanswered on your part.
For somebody who needs to see atoms for himself in order to believe they exist, you sure make a lot of baseless assumptions.
-
Your claims about the dome contradict your own theory. You claim the particles at the dome expand to their fullest extent (still waiting on you to tell us how big this is) and then they freeze. These particles FREEZE at their LOWEST POSSIBLE DENSITY.
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
Haha you think that tin foil ship is floating on GASEOUS TIN? No, it's floating on carbon dioxide. Make a boat out of dry ice and see if it floats on CO2
-
No. What's strange is you think the supercollider at CERN is some kind of billion-dollar international hoax, or it doesn't really exist. I wonder what those scientists do all day.
It is a hoax and there are no real scientists there.
I really wish I knew what kind of "logical" thought would lead you to believe such a massive source of light and heat could be reflected off of a dome that is supposedly near absolute zero.
I can't help it if you can't understand it. You don't really attempt to.
I have no idea where on earth you think these images come from, how they move across the sky, what accounts for all the stars in the night sky, why the moon has phases, or what causes eclipses. All of these simple observations have gone unanswered on your part.
You have to try and understand what the centre of Earth offers - or could offer, instead of thinking you walk about on a ball spinning around a 3 million mile distant 870,000 mile diameter ball of frigging nuclear so called fusion.
For somebody who needs to see atoms for himself in order to believe they exist, you sure make a lot of baseless assumptions.
Unfortunately I don't have anything else to work from. All I see are stories and lies. I have to try and decipher the bullshit. It's not easy when most of the world of humans are brainwashed and hypnotised to believe in absolute illogical nonsense..
-
Your claims about the dome contradict your own theory. You claim the particles at the dome expand to their fullest extent (still waiting on you to tell us how big this is) and then they freeze. These particles FREEZE at their LOWEST POSSIBLE DENSITY.
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
Haha you think that tin foil ship is floating on GASEOUS TIN? No, it's floating on carbon dioxide. Make a boat out of dry ice and see if it floats on CO2
You said:
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
I merely showed you a video.
-
No. What's strange is you think the supercollider at CERN is some kind of billion-dollar international hoax, or it doesn't really exist. I wonder what those scientists do all day.
It is a hoax and there are no real scientists there.
CITATION NEEDED
I suppose all those governments spent years and billions of dollars constructing a gigantic underground circle on a joke? How do you know it's not there? Have you been to Switzerland or eastern France? Unless you have personally been there, how could you denounce it as a hoax?
I really wish I knew what kind of "logical" thought would lead you to believe such a massive source of light and heat could be reflected off of a dome that is supposedly near absolute zero.
I can't help it if you can't understand it. You don't really attempt to.
I have attempted to. I have asked you to exolain your reasoning many times. You have given no explanation. I have no idea why nobody has discovered such a huge energy source if you claim that it exists.
I have no idea where on earth you think these images come from, how they move across the sky, what accounts for all the stars in the night sky, why the moon has phases, or what causes eclipses. All of these simple observations have gone unanswered on your part.
You have to try and understand what the centre of Earth offers - or could offer, instead of thinking you walk about on a ball spinning around a 3 million mile distant 870,000 mile diameter ball of frigging nuclear so called fusion.
What does the center of the earth look like in your model? You have given no attempt to even describe it.
Do you have proof nuclear fusion is a lie? Try going near the Bikini Atoll on your boat sometime, see how long it takes for you to develop cancer.
For somebody who needs to see atoms for himself in order to believe they exist, you sure make a lot of baseless assumptions.
Unfortunately I don't have anything else to work from. All I see are stories and lies. I have to try and decipher the bullshit. It's not easy when most of the world of humans are brainwashed and hypnotised to believe in absolute illogical nonsense..
All I see when I look at denpressure are stories and lies. You have not done one experiment that proves your thinking. You are not trying to find the truth, you are simply trying to stand out. Your life is so dull and pathetic you must invent your own laws of physics to create a world where you have the most ingenious mind and everybody else has been fooled by stories. Let's assume for a minute that you have convinced anybody besides iWitness. You would have people trust that what you are telling them is the truth, even though you have no evidence?
You are hypocrisy personified.
-
Your claims about the dome contradict your own theory. You claim the particles at the dome expand to their fullest extent (still waiting on you to tell us how big this is) and then they freeze. These particles FREEZE at their LOWEST POSSIBLE DENSITY.
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
Haha you think that tin foil ship is floating on GASEOUS TIN? No, it's floating on carbon dioxide. Make a boat out of dry ice and see if it floats on CO2
You said:
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
I merely showed you a video.
No. He said show him 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is a gas.
The important part is " 1 element'
What you showed is two different elements. Unless you are claiming that video is aluminum foil floating on aluminum gas the video is not what was requested.
-
Where are horizontal forces?
They are created when any dense object pushes into the vertical. It squeezes against you as you push the atmosphere out of the way, or compress it up.
You didn't understand my question.
It is easy for vertical displacement.
If you push solid object vertical, it will create pressure to push that object back down.
I was asking for horizontal displacement.
If you push solid object horizontally. For example to the east.
Where is the pressure to push that object back to the west?
Why nitrogen decides to change its position when liquified?
What do you mean?
I mean, same element (nitrogen), same set of molecules, sits comfortably in the middle of the air.
When you reduce temperature and liquify it, it decides to fall down.
Why?
-
Scepti, if I may ask, from person to person, without a single malicious intent on my behalf, can you tell me about your educational attainment and religious beliefs. No need to explain or justify the why of it.
-
Can't believe you are still discussing this. Didn't we prove that denpressure is false?
(https://i.imgflip.com/18upq2.jpg)
more here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67602.0
-
Scepti, what is happening is that the tin boat + the air inside the boat is less dense than the air outside of it. If you made the boat out of solid tin, it wouldn't float at all.
-
Scepti, just to be clear, are atoms a solid mass configured like "bubbles in a sink" with no empty space in between? I seem to recall you stating as such.
I didn't mention atoms but we can use atoms if it makes it all more easily accepted for explanations.
There is never empty space and when I say empty, I mean a true vacuum in Earth's cell. Outside of it who knows what. Possibly infinite similar Earth's - but that's not important right now.
What is important is understanding that gravity is crap and denpressure is the reality of how we exist in our Earth prison cell.
Here's what I'm curious about. If air and metal are both a solid mass of atoms/molecules/particles, or whatever you feel they are, and you say there is no empty space between any of these particles, then how does air pressure pass through metal like aluminum easier than it does through some other metal that is heavier?
-
I am a genius. I'm a simplistic genius. I see things that many don't. I turn the complicated into the less complicated so that the normal every day person can get the chance to grasp stuff.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Your claims about the dome contradict your own theory. You claim the particles at the dome expand to their fullest extent (still waiting on you to tell us how big this is) and then they freeze. These particles FREEZE at their LOWEST POSSIBLE DENSITY.
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
Haha you think that tin foil ship is floating on GASEOUS TIN? No, it's floating on carbon dioxide. Make a boat out of dry ice and see if it floats on CO2
You said:
Tell me 1 element that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas. It makes no logical sense.
I merely showed you a video.
That is not a video showing tin being less dense than CO2. Please learn how ships float and then report back.