The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 04:23:41 AM

Title: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 04:23:41 AM
INTRODUCTION:

Den pressure appears to be a great Flat Earth theory that would be easily testable by the FE Community in their homes or local area.  I'd like to work with the community, mainly Scepty and iWitness to first define what Den Pressure is and what the expected results of Den Pressure would be when it comes to various situations.

Everyone else welcome, but I ask that we make this a topic on the testable truth of Den Pressure and not get off topic.  That means no discussion on Gravity.  We are not here in this thread to prove Gravity exists, only to test the theory of Den Pressure.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 04:24:39 AM
DEFINTION:

Den Pressure:
Is the act of Air Pressure creating weight by pressing down on an object.  The density of an object determines how much air pressure affects how much force is transferred to the object to create weight.  For instance a less dense object would be affected less and in return would weight less.

Air Pressure:


Density:


Resources:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 04:25:30 AM
EXPERIMENT 1:

Material Density affects how much PSI an object can absorb.  A less dense object will absorb more PSI making it weigh less, while a more dense object will repel/push against more psi making the object heavier.

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.

To test this Hypothesis we will need a control and different material types as well as a way to apply air pressure to the object.

What you'll need:
Scale (digital preferred)
Small peice of Wood
Small peice of Metal
Compressed Air which can emit a constant controlled airflow.

Instructions:
Place the Scale on a steady surface and zero it out.
Affix the Compressed Air to allow it to point down directly at the scale.
Apply the Compressed Air to the scale and measure the scales weight with the consistent air flow. Record Results.

Place the piece of wood on top of the scale. 
Zero out the scale. 
Adjust air so it is same distance from piece of Wood. 
Apply Compressed Air. 
Record Weight Results on Scale.

Follow the above steps for the piece of metal and as many other different types of material as you like making sure to Zero out the scale and having the same size objects.

All objects should be solid to prevent air bleed.

Hypothesis:
Less dense objects will have a smaller weight gain from the applied air pressure then more dense objects.
The wood should have a smaller weight gain than the same sized piece of metal.



Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 04:26:15 AM
EXPERIMENT 2:

The Density of an Object is determined on how much Atmosphere it can absorb.  If the atmosphere is replaced with another material or it is squished to remove the atmosphere then it will weight the same in units to volume as other objects at the same volume.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.


Thanks Scepti!  Now to find a testable way of measuring this Hypothesis.

The theory is that an object weighs less because it is porous (in other words less dense) and has areas filled with air.  Because of this the air pressure that is applied to it is does not affect the entire object because it's able to flow through the object. 

If all of those areas were then filled with the same substance, then a sponge and a wood that had had the porous areas (for lack of a better word) removed would weigh the same.

Am I understanding that correctly Scepti?
You are understanding it correctly.

To test this experiment we'll need a control and different materials that weigh different amounts but are roughly the same volume.

What you'll need:
4+ Measuring Containers, all need to be the same size and able to measure precisely.
Metal - Same size as wood and sponge
Wood
Sponge
Water
Scale

Instructions:
Place each object in a Container
Weigh each container and record results

Pour water into each container to the same measurement level.  (The water should cover each item completely with some extra room above the object).
Leave containers overnight to allow for water to go into the porous areas of each object and remove the atmosphere.

Add any water needed to each container so that each container's water level matches.  This will ensure that each container is holding the same volume of material.
Weigh each container and record results.

Hypothesis:
By leaving the water in overnight this should allow all of the objects to absorb the water and remove any atmosphere inside of the object.  Because weight is determined on density all of the densities of these objects should match and each container will now weigh the same amount.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 04:27:27 AM
EXPERIMENT 3:

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.
Please explain more.

The gist seems to be that the force exerted by denpressure is down to the fact that we displace air. It takes a certain amount of force to do that, so there's an equal and opposite reaction on us. We push the upwards-stacked air, and it pushed back. The swimming pool analogy is a good one to get this idea across: just imagine standing on your head (assuming uniform density of the water, if we're being picky). To fully submerge yourself, whether horizontal or vertical, displaces exactly the same amount of water. As such, exactly the same amount of pressure would act on the body.
If you've ever been in a pool, you know the water pushes you up: and yet it's easier to float if you lie on your back than stand up, because when lying the upwards/downwards pressure is spread out.

I'll admit to not being sold on denpressure as a viable model, but it's just silly to claim it can't answer questions which it definitely can.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Surface area is a factor I believe, but more when it comes to the distribution of force. The total amount of force strictly depends on the volume of air displaced (hence why porous objects would displace less and so exert less force). It's quite neat, actually.
Analogy's analogy, it's never going to be perfect. I will say I don't believe Scepti adheres to the model of molecules you're likely familiar with, but even so bricks don't need to be cemented together to stack.

Equipment
Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

Method
1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Predictions
Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.

What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.014 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: AdamSK on August 02, 2016, 04:27:39 AM
Fantastic idea!  Hopefully we can get a quantification of how air interacts with objects under various conditions and some way to measure and predict the effects.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 04:28:47 AM
CONCLUSION:
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 04:42:56 AM
Please feel free to correct me on any of this stuff, I will freely admit I'm not an expert on Den Pressure and am only sharing my basic understanding of it based off of what I've grasped these last couple days.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: hoppy on August 02, 2016, 04:50:23 AM
Please feel free to correct me on any of this stuff, I will freely admit I'm not an expert on Den Pressure and am only sharing my basic understanding of it based off of what I've grasped these last couple days.
As all of your experiment are blank, my guess is that you have no understanding of the topic whatsoever. ::)
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 06:12:28 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 06:20:12 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 06:22:27 AM
Please feel free to correct me on any of this stuff, I will freely admit I'm not an expert on Den Pressure and am only sharing my basic understanding of it based off of what I've grasped these last couple days.
As all of your experiment are blank, my guess is that you have no understanding of the topic whatsoever. ::)

Please stay on topic.  This topic is to be built upon by the community.  The empty experiment posts are so that we can have create experiments based on what is defined as Den Pressure and then have at the top of the thread an areas for those experiments to be recorded and kept instead of being buried in pages on a thread.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 06:25:20 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 06:53:58 AM
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1pexlV3sG9Gw86_DIIR29Z3q8xJLdhh8uZT0B2enRqVfKtbuXw1R22_pclRLsU7qzSKv2DWaEoz2vPflW8DpScdgubltX1JAwxvYCcJY98MC1ACwMdKcOLqNXRvUPYb2gQ-GNMLEN6rBNAV1nEEPOmPpKviHUatII3g6gzHMmJF1-U-S13oMWFV1wKtqe1OMvLnQ9WZqdIjwFd49JLp5SFoY4RM3mjfhO2CjvOD0uXG_KKlKesYB7r6RckECdisRCDDBZSHm5_BlkOPiYNsT1L_LgR3-oBTfhApd-zg4WvZ93pcOkMaPBa0uFCobvvYfhs5NysMSxUqwYkwybuhZHLcXCVxLc3B1MlHpc3TLrd3LpMsWyEoLvnUIHTmz_DY3C9K-resuQRW4n7rNiqnt_l6k-VHZEu4rN8ztGcytBkLxpy0Pivx4gkJybCjqOHypCI5r208_j1rTzzrnqnbk0f4d9kPryDDy31fEFpZv-8rqbtSSvNTTTg38I-SVjUCxLehUr4mVbV4z9ZDtH8F3FqwLNVeHbXk5Qun3BCAsDrbobDzy3hLWjH4AolN4J5mQpEVfXaUYMR0jaXShwY3HExw3CSXKEzs=w261-h520-no)
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 07:01:13 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 07:16:49 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.

Thanks Scepti!  Now to find a testable way of measuring this Hypothesis.

The theory is that an object weighs less because it is porous (in other words less dense) and has areas filled with air.  Because of this the air pressure that is applied to it is does not affect the entire object because it's able to flow through the object. 

If all of those areas were then filled with the same substance, then a sponge and a wood that had had the porous areas (for lack of a better word) removed would weigh the same.

Am I understanding that correctly Scepti?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 07:26:53 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.

Thanks Scepti!  Now to find a testable way of measuring this Hypothesis.

The theory is that an object weighs less because it is porous (in other words less dense) and has areas filled with air.  Because of this the air pressure that is applied to it is does not affect the entire object because it's able to flow through the object. 

If all of those areas were then filled with the same substance, then a sponge and a wood that had had the porous areas (for lack of a better word) removed would weigh the same.

Am I understanding that correctly Scepti?
You are understanding it correctly.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Charming Anarchist on August 02, 2016, 07:32:13 AM
I want to know more about what is physically occurring.  What does "porous" mean? 

Is air trying to find its way into metal? 
Is air trying to form a chemical reaction to metal? failing which, the consequences are denpressure? 

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.
What is a block of tungsten doing more that a block of lead can only do less? 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 02, 2016, 07:34:03 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 07:42:01 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?

Let's keep this on topic, we're not hear to define vacuum.  We're hear to define and test Den Pressure.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 07:43:05 AM
I want to know more about what is physically occurring.  What does "porous" mean? 

Is air trying to find its way into metal?
Basically yes. If you want to look at it that way, it's a good way to look at it because it explains a lot of things easier if you keep that mindset.
 
Is air trying to form a chemical reaction to metal? failing which, the consequences are denpressure?
Basically yes. The atmospheric pressure is basically trying to send everything back into order. It's a cycle of pushing up by energy against pushing into and back against by pressure.

What is a block of tungsten doing more that a block of lead can only do less?
This is all about where they sit in Earth and the energy it takes to separate the materials.
It's basically down to friction and frequency of vibration. Or to put it simply, it's the massive expansion of matter and the ability to be cooled under varying pressures that determines how much each matter holds in their make up in terms of trapped atmospheric pressure.

That probably might not explain much. Maybe you can grasp that.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 07:53:17 AM
Scepti, would you say Experiment 1 would be fair and accurate test of the Hypothesis Presented?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 07:55:58 AM
Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.
It relies on lowering pressure to increase the atmospheric force. A turbo charger does the same thing.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.
Because under normal atmospheric conditions, the chamber and the balloon put into it are under around 14.7 psi of pressure.
Once the pump allows the chamber to evacuate pressure, the molecules inside becomes less dense and expand. Because of this, the dense molecules inside the balloon do exactly the same thing and expand. Because they expand and cannot get out of the balloon, the balloon expands as well. It's simply LOWERING the pressure and is not and never is, a vacuum.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.
Same as the balloon. It's simply expansion of matter with a pump allowing it to expand out of the chamber.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?
You are seeing and perceiving the matter/molecules expanding against each other due to the pump stopping the denser atmospheric pressure from entering the chamber; allowing those expanded molecules to PUSH out by expansion within themselves.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: AdamSK on August 02, 2016, 07:57:27 AM
So if we use a vacuum pump on an enclosed space, will that reduce the weight of the objects therein?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 02, 2016, 08:00:55 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?

Let's keep this on topic, we're not hear to define vacuum.  We're hear to define and test Den Pressure.

Alright. Your thread your rules.

So basically porosity = weight?  So what we would expect to see is that anything impermeable must weigh more than anything porous?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: AdamSK on August 02, 2016, 08:03:07 AM
By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.
The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.
This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.
So if we have a fist-sized lump of lead and a fist-sized diamond, the diamond will be much easier to squash because it is so much lighter than the lead?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 08:03:21 AM
Scepti, would you say Experiment 1 would be fair and accurate test of the Hypothesis Presented?
Ok I've just read through your experiment 1. You're sort of on the right lines with this experiment but it needs to be done fairly accurately. This way is intriguing.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 08:07:14 AM
So if we use a vacuum pump on an enclosed space, will that reduce the weight of the objects therein?
You have to weigh them and that requires man made scales which are also made under atmospheric conditions which means they can be affected by the change.

Try the experiments with manual kitchen scales (not digital) in a chamber and see what results you come up with.
Don't see this as an argument against me, see it as an experiment for your own mind..
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 08:08:48 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?

Let's keep this on topic, we're not hear to define vacuum.  We're hear to define and test Den Pressure.

Alright. Your thread your rules.

So basically porosity = weight?  So what we would expect to see is that anything impermeable must weigh more than anything porous?
Yes, basically.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 08:12:09 AM
By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.
The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.
This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.
So if we have a fist-sized lump of lead and a fist-sized diamond, the diamond will be much easier to squash because it is so much lighter than the lead?
No. It's not about being easier to actually squash. It's about being able to release trapped atmosphere within the object. If you can't release the trapped atmosphere, then your object has little or none of it, meaning it's basically very dense.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: AdamSK on August 02, 2016, 08:25:11 AM
So if we use a vacuum pump on an enclosed space, will that reduce the weight of the objects therein?
You have to weigh them and that requires man made scales which are also made under atmospheric conditions which means they can be affected by the change.
I would expect them to be affected - but by the same amount rather than proportional to the density of the objects.

Quote
Try the experiments with manual kitchen scales (not digital) in a chamber and see what results you come up with.
Don't see this as an argument against me, see it as an experiment for your own mind..
That's my attitude generally.  All of these are potential experiments to distinguish different models.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: AdamSK on August 02, 2016, 08:26:32 AM
No. It's not about being easier to actually squash. It's about being able to release trapped atmosphere within the object. If you can't release the trapped atmosphere, then your object has little or none of it, meaning it's basically very dense.

Diamond isn't very dense, but it's still pretty much impossible to squash.  Is it that the atmosphere is just trapped really really well, or is there some other reason?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 08:36:19 AM
No. It's not about being easier to actually squash. It's about being able to release trapped atmosphere within the object. If you can't release the trapped atmosphere, then your object has little or none of it, meaning it's basically very dense.

Diamond isn't very dense, but it's still pretty much impossible to squash.  Is it that the atmosphere is just trapped really really well, or is there some other reason?
I'll leave that for you or anyone else to guess. I know nothing about the make up of diamonds.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: AdamSK on August 02, 2016, 09:04:55 AM
I'll leave that for you or anyone else to guess. I know nothing about the make up of diamonds.

Diamonds are just a particularly obvious example.  More generally, a material's density is not the same as its compressibility - solids can be extraordinarily difficult to compress but still be lighter than other solids.
I had read your earlier statement as saying that all items of a particular density should be equally easy to squeeze, but now I see that you are not saying that.
How can we measure if a particular item has any air left in it?  I presume you don't believe in standard chemistry's description of atomic and molecular structure.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Charming Anarchist on August 02, 2016, 09:07:11 AM
Diamond isn't very dense, but it's still pretty much impossible to squash.  Is it that the atmosphere is just trapped really really well, or is there some other reason?
I'll leave that for you or anyone else to guess. I know nothing about the make up of diamonds.
I will take a guess -- although, it does not seem profound to me. 

The crystalline structure of diamonds permits more/less/different vibration through itself than does metal. 

Rather than thinking of air/atmospheric pressure entering dense objects, it seems like air pressure is a consequence of a dense object repelling outside vibration. 

Air inside a sponge or wood or metal is only a result of the interaction of vibrating matter. 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 09:22:18 AM
I'll leave that for you or anyone else to guess. I know nothing about the make up of diamonds.

Diamonds are just a particularly obvious example.  More generally, a material's density is not the same as its compressibility - solids can be extraordinarily difficult to compress but still be lighter than other solids.
I had read your earlier statement as saying that all items of a particular density should be equally easy to squeeze, but now I see that you are not saying that.
How can we measure if a particular item has any air left in it?  I presume you don't believe in standard chemistry's description of atomic and molecular structure.
I don't want to go into this atomic structure stuff because none of us really know what the hell it all is and neither do scientists. It's just stuff made up to try and explain things, to make them appear workable. I know, I know, we can argue about it all but let's not do it in this topic as it just becomes congested with stuff we all cannot basically answer.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 09:32:41 AM
Diamond isn't very dense, but it's still pretty much impossible to squash.  Is it that the atmosphere is just trapped really really well, or is there some other reason?
I'll leave that for you or anyone else to guess. I know nothing about the make up of diamonds.
I will take a guess -- although, it does not seem profound to me. 

The crystalline structure of diamonds permits more/less/different vibration through itself than does metal. 

Rather than thinking of air/atmospheric pressure entering dense objects, it seems like air pressure is a consequence of a dense object repelling outside vibration. 

Air inside a sponge or wood or metal is only a result of the interaction of vibrating matter.
Well to be fair, vibrating matter plays a massive part in it all because there is no atmosphere without the vibration of matter/molecules and the frequency.

So on that note you are on the right lines.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 09:49:11 AM
Diamond isn't very dense, but it's still pretty much impossible to squash.  Is it that the atmosphere is just trapped really really well, or is there some other reason?
I'll leave that for you or anyone else to guess. I know nothing about the make up of diamonds.
I will take a guess -- although, it does not seem profound to me. 

The crystalline structure of diamonds permits more/less/different vibration through itself than does metal. 

Rather than thinking of air/atmospheric pressure entering dense objects, it seems like air pressure is a consequence of a dense object repelling outside vibration. 

Air inside a sponge or wood or metal is only a result of the interaction of vibrating matter.
Well to be fair, vibrating matter plays a massive part in it all because there is no atmosphere without the vibration of matter/molecules and the frequency.

So on that note you are on the right lines.

Let's not discuss things we cannot observe ourselves.  Vibrating matter being one of those things.  Until we can observe it it doesn't really exist.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 09:49:34 AM
Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sokarul on August 02, 2016, 09:57:52 AM
I'll leave that for you or anyone else to guess. I know nothing about the make up of diamonds.

Diamonds are just a particularly obvious example.  More generally, a material's density is not the same as its compressibility - solids can be extraordinarily difficult to compress but still be lighter than other solids.
I had read your earlier statement as saying that all items of a particular density should be equally easy to squeeze, but now I see that you are not saying that.
How can we measure if a particular item has any air left in it?  I presume you don't believe in standard chemistry's description of atomic and molecular structure.
I don't want to go into this atomic structure stuff because none of us really know what the hell it all is and neither do scientists. It's just stuff made up to try and explain things, to make them appear workable. I know, I know, we can argue about it all but let's not do it in this topic as it just becomes congested with stuff we all cannot basically answer.
Lol... Or actually not. Don't say scientists know nothing. Amount other things there is  x Ray crystallography. Look up minerals and you will find known crystal structures.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 10:09:23 AM
Scepti, can you review experiment 2?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 02, 2016, 10:38:55 AM
Going by the rule of impermeability = weight:

So you take a sponge and the same size square of concrete.  The concrete weighs more obviously.  The sponge is very porous.  Concrete is also porous but less so.  I take the sponge and soak it in silicone caulk.  It is now less porous than the concrete.  Does that mean the sponge now weighs more than the concrete?

Would that be a valid experiment?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: markjo on August 02, 2016, 10:58:41 AM
Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.
Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 02, 2016, 11:37:29 AM
Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.
Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?

It should be tested using experiment 2.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 02, 2016, 12:16:24 PM
What if, for example, we placed a ball of lead on top of a sponge? That would depress the sponge, forcing air out of it (no matter which model you believe). I think everyone ought to agree that the weight of the ball on top of the sponge would be slightly less than the weight of the ball plus the weight of the sponge.

There is something to what Scepti's saying, as far as this goes. Typically it'd be thought of as density, Scepti's just saying less dense objects essentially have 'more room' for air/atmospheric pressure to get inside.
So an interesting experiment might be to be able to work out how to differentiate between the two, if that's even possible.

I do like the sound of experiment 2 though. Easily doable, and there are clear predictions. By the model of gravity, air's just been replaced with water so their differences in weight wouldn't change that much. By denpressure, if it's down to atmosphere getting into the object, that's all been removed and they'd have relatively equal volume. If it's done quickly...
Does come down to what Scepti says though. Even if there is something you didn't take into account, if nothing else it helps define denpressure in more detail.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 12:58:42 PM
What if, for example, we placed a ball of lead on top of a sponge? That would depress the sponge, forcing air out of it (no matter which model you believe). I think everyone ought to agree that the weight of the ball on top of the sponge would be slightly less than the weight of the ball plus the weight of the sponge.
No. There will be no difference in weight unless sponge is soaked with water and when you place a ball on it it takes water out of it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 02, 2016, 01:08:08 PM
What if, for example, we placed a ball of lead on top of a sponge? That would depress the sponge, forcing air out of it (no matter which model you believe). I think everyone ought to agree that the weight of the ball on top of the sponge would be slightly less than the weight of the ball plus the weight of the sponge.
No. There will be no difference in weight unless sponge is soaked with water and when you place a ball on it it takes water out of it.

Very, very slight but I think there would be: there's always going to be air in the sponge that's weighed as well thanks to gravity (functionally a little would be caught within). Though I agree it ought to be more distinct under the denpressure model.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:15:20 PM
Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?
The force pushing it back is the compression of air inside the syringe, then the water, aided by the push of atmospheric pressure upon the water.
Your near vacuum thought would not produce any force on its own, it merely creates that lower pressure against the higher pressure compression that you initially pushed..
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:27:06 PM
Scepti, can you review experiment 2?
Experiment 2 looks pretty good in how you want it set up.
It's clear that you're doing your homework on this.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:30:24 PM
Going by the rule of impermeability = weight:

So you take a sponge and the same size square of concrete.  The concrete weighs more obviously.  The sponge is very porous.  Concrete is also porous but less so.  I take the sponge and soak it in silicone caulk.  It is now less porous than the concrete.  Does that mean the sponge now weighs more than the concrete?

Would that be a valid experiment?
Look at experiment 2.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:35:53 PM

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?
Because the Lead, Iron and aluminium absorb different amounts of atmospheric pressure. It's trapped in some metals more than others as well as absorbed into some.
The trapped atmosphere is your magnets but we won't go into that.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:38:27 PM
What if, for example, we placed a ball of lead on top of a sponge? That would depress the sponge, forcing air out of it (no matter which model you believe). I think everyone ought to agree that the weight of the ball on top of the sponge would be slightly less than the weight of the ball plus the weight of the sponge.

There is something to what Scepti's saying, as far as this goes. Typically it'd be thought of as density, Scepti's just saying less dense objects essentially have 'more room' for air/atmospheric pressure to get inside.
So an interesting experiment might be to be able to work out how to differentiate between the two, if that's even possible.

I do like the sound of experiment 2 though. Easily doable, and there are clear predictions. By the model of gravity, air's just been replaced with water so their differences in weight wouldn't change that much. By denpressure, if it's down to atmosphere getting into the object, that's all been removed and they'd have relatively equal volume. If it's done quickly...
Does come down to what Scepti says though. Even if there is something you didn't take into account, if nothing else it helps define denpressure in more detail.
Exactly right. I like the way you think and it appears you and sandman have the grasp of it all.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 02, 2016, 03:18:32 PM

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?
Because the Lead, Iron and aluminium absorb different amounts of atmospheric pressure. It's trapped in some metals more than others as well as absorbed into some.
The trapped atmosphere is your magnets but we won't go into that.
Pressure is not a substance to absorb, what do you mean?  How is it measured?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: markjo on August 02, 2016, 03:34:06 PM

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?
Because the Lead, Iron and aluminium absorb different amounts of atmospheric pressure. It's trapped in some metals more than others as well as absorbed into some.
The trapped atmosphere is your magnets but we won't go into that.
Actually, metal foundries work very hard to make sure that no atmosphere is absorbed into their metals because most of the elements in the atmosphere make the metals weaker.  For example, when iron absorbs atmosphere, you get rust.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: rabinoz on August 02, 2016, 03:37:20 PM
This is a (slightly edited) post I made about six months ago. It is about metals which cannot "absorb" any atmosphere. If they did any container made from these would leak air, and that does not happen.


The weight of an object simply cannot be caused by atmospheric pressure for numerous reasons. 
Here are a few:

  • Air pressure presses almost equally all around an object, so causes no nett downward force.  In fact, the pressure is (very) slightly higher at the bottom than the top, so there is slight buoyancy (Archimedes principle)
  • The weight of an object actually increases very slightly in a very low pressure chamber (loosely called a "vacuum chamber") due to the loss of the  buoyancy mentioned in (1)
  • If the weight of an object was due to atmospheric pressure the weight would be higher for an object of the same mass but larger volume, in fact, the opposite is true (though the difference is very slight unless the volume is very large - eg a helium balloon).
Another example.  Suppose we have 4 identical cube shaped blocks of 10 cm each side made of 4 different metals.  The following table gives the mass (and weight) in kilograms:

Magnesium
   1.80 kg
Steel
   7.85 kg
Lead
   11.37 kg
Gold
   19.36 kg

Now these blocks have exactly the same shape and size, yet have very different masses and weights.
How could this be if the weight was due to atmospheric pressure?


No-one is going to convince me, without experimental evidence, that any of these metals can absorb a measureable amount of atmosphere.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 03:45:08 PM

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?
Because the Lead, Iron and aluminium absorb different amounts of atmospheric pressure. It's trapped in some metals more than others as well as absorbed into some.
The trapped atmosphere is your magnets but we won't go into that.
Actually, metal foundries work very hard to make sure that no atmosphere is absorbed into their metals because most of the elements in the atmosphere make the metals weaker.  For example, when iron absorbs atmosphere, you get rust.
That depends on the metals.
You cannot keep out atmospheric pressure from probably any metals but you can go a long way into minimizing it; especially in soft metals like Lead and gold, etc.
You see, these metals are under or have been under severe pressure underground in liquid form. When forced up they become a solid but a soft solid due to their make up.

Up top, or closer, we have the metals we regularly use and we have to use a lot of energy to get the metals from the ground by friction or in basic terms, melting it out by furnace which makes it extremely expanded. From this point on it depends how it's cooled and how much pressure is applied during cooling, plus how many re-heats it gains. Etc etc.
Basically metals become more or less porous depending on how and where they were mined and by what means they were extracted to form what we know as the metals we see and use.
The list is long and complicated to actually go through so I'm sure you get my meaning.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 02, 2016, 03:47:03 PM
Good point from Markjo: what causes rust?
Typically it'd be contact with the air, which causes it on the outside surface. If air's within a metal too, shouldn't we observe it just as much on the inside? Or do you accept another cause?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: hoppy on August 02, 2016, 05:28:56 PM

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?
Because the Lead, Iron and aluminium absorb different amounts of atmospheric pressure. It's trapped in some metals more than others as well as absorbed into some.
The trapped atmosphere is your magnets but we won't go into that.
Actually, metal foundries work very hard to make sure that no atmosphere is absorbed into their metals because most of the elements in the atmosphere make the metals weaker.  For example, when iron absorbs atmosphere, you get rust.
That depends on the metals.
You cannot keep out atmospheric pressure from probably any metals but you can go a long way into minimizing it; especially in soft metals like Lead and gold, etc.
You see, these metals are under or have been under severe pressure underground in liquid form. When forced up they become a solid but a soft solid due to their make up.

Up top, or closer, we have the metals we regularly use and we have to use a lot of energy to get the metals from the ground by friction or in basic terms, melting it out by furnace which makes it extremely expanded. From this point on it depends how it's cooled and how much pressure is applied during cooling, plus how many re-heats it gains. Etc etc.
Basically metals become more or less porous depending on how and where they were mined and by what means they were extracted to form what we know as the metals we see and use.
The list is long and complicated to actually go through so I'm sure you get my meaning.
Scepti, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. Take steel pipez on a pipeline. The materials running through the pipeline are at 1000's of lbs. psi. How pourous can the steel in the pipeline be?  I don't think there can be any air or any gas in the steel.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 08:32:55 PM
Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?
The force pushing it back is the compression of air inside the syringe, then the water, aided by the push of atmospheric pressure upon the water.
Your near vacuum thought would not produce any force on its own, it merely creates that lower pressure against the higher pressure compression that you initially pushed..
Whatever. Do you accept that you'll get a cavity with tremendously lower atmospheric pressure? Like 1 tenth of what we have? Will then same object weigh less in this cavity?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 02, 2016, 08:45:52 PM
Nice to see scepti back and in full flow.  :) 

I would have titled the thread  Denspressure,   Den Pressure sounds like something to do with the social hierarchy of foxes.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 02, 2016, 09:27:31 PM
Ok...I actually understand this concept now and have the hypothesis dynamics in my head and find it interesting rather it be true or false. I still have not understood why a vacuum would not be a proper testing method of this hypothesis, especially a hard vacuum. Sure, we could never preform a perfect vacuum, not even deep space is such a thing, but I would imagine the weight should change a certain amount.

Since scepti agrees with test number one I can perform this if you give me an idea of an acceptable psi level of the compressed air. I can run off one of the compressors and keep the flow even through a secondary regulator.

I also had a thought...would melting down a metal or material to its liquid form weighing before and after provide any conclusive evidence to your hypothesis?


Also, I had a large diesel generator in here not to long ago I had to fab some replacement parts for. Also had to do some work on the fuel system. It ran at 61,000 psi, the fuel was obviously just a atomized vapor at that pressure. You have to wear a suit and face/neck mask, and gloves that are like that of high voltage gloves to work on it. If there is even a slight break in even a connection port, the escaping fuel can easily pierce your skin and make it to your heart.

This type of pressure, surely the metal would absorb at least some portion of the fuel. Yes I know the fuel is more dense than air, yet under that type of pressure, and basically being a vapor, you get what I am saying.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 02, 2016, 10:12:44 PM
Now along the lines of experiment 2:

I have an 80lb bag of concrete.  The concrete takes up .6 cubic feet=1036 cubic inches.  So .077lbs per cubic inch.

I have an 80ml tube of silicone sealant which weighs .24lb which takes up 4.88 cubic inches.  So .049lbs per cubic inch.

Silicone sealant is non porous.  Concrete is porous.  Shouldn't the concrete be lighter under this theory?  Are there other factors that are supposed to be involved here regarding the weight of an object?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: iWitness on August 02, 2016, 10:23:19 PM
I think Denpressure is pretty self-explanatory and very logical to say the least.

For instance, I saw on TV today a program about sharpshooters and it was talking about how the bullet makes an arched trajectory due to gravity. But that is incorrect. The bullet makes a curved trajectory due to Air Pressure. It's the air infront of the bullet that pushes it down.

Likewise, If you shoot the bullet straight up it's the air that slows it down, not gravity.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 02, 2016, 11:35:19 PM
I think Denpressure is pretty self-explanatory and very logical to say the least.

For instance, I saw on TV today a program about sharpshooters and it was talking about how the bullet makes an arched trajectory due to gravity. But that is incorrect. The bullet makes a curved trajectory due to Air Pressure. It's the air infront of the bullet that pushes it down.

Likewise, If you shoot the bullet straight up it's the air that slows it down, not gravity.
The air pressure is the same all around the bullet.  Calculations please.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 12:01:31 AM

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?
Because the Lead, Iron and aluminium absorb different amounts of atmospheric pressure. It's trapped in some metals more than others as well as absorbed into some.
The trapped atmosphere is your magnets but we won't go into that.
Actually, metal foundries work very hard to make sure that no atmosphere is absorbed into their metals because most of the elements in the atmosphere make the metals weaker.  For example, when iron absorbs atmosphere, you get rust.
That depends on the metals.
You cannot keep out atmospheric pressure from probably any metals but you can go a long way into minimizing it; especially in soft metals like Lead and gold, etc.
You see, these metals are under or have been under severe pressure underground in liquid form. When forced up they become a solid but a soft solid due to their make up.

Up top, or closer, we have the metals we regularly use and we have to use a lot of energy to get the metals from the ground by friction or in basic terms, melting it out by furnace which makes it extremely expanded. From this point on it depends how it's cooled and how much pressure is applied during cooling, plus how many re-heats it gains. Etc etc.
Basically metals become more or less porous depending on how and where they were mined and by what means they were extracted to form what we know as the metals we see and use.
The list is long and complicated to actually go through so I'm sure you get my meaning.
Scepti, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. Take steel pipez on a pipeline. The materials running through the pipeline are at 1000's of lbs. psi. How pourous can the steel in the pipeline be?  I don't think there can be any air or any gas in the steel.
Pipelines are coated. They are shot blasted and epoxy coated, etc. Also it's not about big perforations like a tea bag in pipes and stuff but they would still be porous in a very minute way, just as glass is and most other materials that we don't really think about in that way.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 12:03:04 AM
Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?
The force pushing it back is the compression of air inside the syringe, then the water, aided by the push of atmospheric pressure upon the water.
Your near vacuum thought would not produce any force on its own, it merely creates that lower pressure against the higher pressure compression that you initially pushed..
Whatever. Do you accept that you'll get a cavity with tremendously lower atmospheric pressure? Like 1 tenth of what we have? Will then same object weigh less in this cavity?
Take a scale and measure it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 12:06:36 AM
Ok...I actually understand this concept now and have the hypothesis dynamics in my head and find it interesting rather it be true or false. I still have not understood why a vacuum would not be a proper testing method of this hypothesis, especially a hard vacuum. Sure, we could never preform a perfect vacuum, not even deep space is such a thing, but I would imagine the weight should change a certain amount.

Since scepti agrees with test number one I can perform this if you give me an idea of an acceptable psi level of the compressed air. I can run off one of the compressors and keep the flow even through a secondary regulator.

I also had a thought...would melting down a metal or material to its liquid form weighing before and after provide any conclusive evidence to your hypothesis?


Also, I had a large diesel generator in here not to long ago I had to fab some replacement parts for. Also had to do some work on the fuel system. It ran at 61,000 psi, the fuel was obviously just a atomized vapor at that pressure. You have to wear a suit and face/neck mask, and gloves that are like that of high voltage gloves to work on it. If there is even a slight break in even a connection port, the escaping fuel can easily pierce your skin and make it to your heart.

This type of pressure, surely the metal would absorb at least some portion of the fuel. Yes I know the fuel is more dense than air, yet under that type of pressure, and basically being a vapor, you get what I am saying.
Why don't you try some of that stuff out and see what you come up with.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 03, 2016, 12:45:51 AM
Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?
The force pushing it back is the compression of air inside the syringe, then the water, aided by the push of atmospheric pressure upon the water.
Your near vacuum thought would not produce any force on its own, it merely creates that lower pressure against the higher pressure compression that you initially pushed..
Whatever. Do you accept that you'll get a cavity with tremendously lower atmospheric pressure? Like 1 tenth of what we have? Will then same object weigh less in this cavity?
Take a scale and measure it.
Ok. I'll conduct the experiment. I just want to be sure it will be genuine from your point of view.
I'll take a syringe and will glue a piece of rubber or a spiral and some object in the following way:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Z6QRJYzz0RFP78nJi-sx7UaqAywg0XfJ-tUPrkE0zKG4NHCik9FNSPTvmZetIjz2wT7JwDAC5aTkPw6Y9rqFaA3ZJOrhCEHLqKFGfnTDdC4gyHyrMLV4yqoOazeWtXFU7AT7znwILuSlJIFJ0-XPCESQzyeV1NsY6_V4wu_qXREK_Bw07LlF9Gfydf987M9FbV0drCE8DznMaat27EfaAIufsQRxUzFunSJuRc_ICd3W-NYqcfmSc-pvKfmXZC_dUFWg14_dQGlaY97PzLEkGqgsTdrAHOuLG-DvV2Qkoa4d6nEeTJ1lkEgoQhaCq0rWmRWghP56addG0zooGfvmyZy-KU2wx3fh4otRGop6yp3R5xXOayz-xVEE35KYB07IcUYq6YQHWSQtvNwaEoDF-I2_h5tDCaZNqx66j3Cfk2V8vJgS0VOpeVISX8cyJqHdxI7BJw_HFZ1-aDwlLVNM8asYSynFTbGhye6-jN4UfTdFBGZ0YyAjCcm2joLfMo9vXWqJTG5DGld1N1RWZgBnr2oM-4-8_F6ey3jraQe8xDwImD44jj3Fb26Pp38fXWorbLI9CH4q2vEPsCisA7D8ecng-1pzNKE=w709-h893-no)

I'm taking a syringe and pull it into transparent container with water.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XM_6HowWiUjDnjaK0eObko8NVeHWP2kWpfO1j_QP7RxwQISRHPwltI93dwyh6aK098XJyndng8CEl-CGD7IdyDvcwuAYsQSTJZ0rjY-fyyGKvD1H8Fv6aCZA1xhcjGx-VfXWGXGPOJSKcwYtJZgaPs4psAuZpJTiLzRQQj9gTKIwz93ekHPD4H28V6bdQuTCaLhqeJmxGrvMi7kNxyyAxaDEAP31g2Okwm4CrQANbSntdO2rP6RKXA8Y1xP3IJxOcFp3B3egK0bZRPc4ME-Qb6Ni8g4u6iBUJHC9emHooUxS1H_tflYSyw4MpzWJn55ixWy2-rYEJcfiHLB9gPaz6j7mc3XT0rTJxCs68UqwfDS1jfC95Mb-FGSDBLrDNod-wgfymPds7eqbutzeNDmd1SxuSQ-8zwK3weDJfEKqbjUhb5Czqw0cyfjLdjYTaYvkZXF8KiD9yBeFpk7kOZcMjcPG71p4KGUWqJAXn0buTpzO0Rvl9423xnAlxEMXlg-px6a1BPsu-P5BlJC_4PbZxYWeM1uuRXVejPaRhPxcgt8cK8zDzrQVbEocq5EOw7dVUzZBsZZ-ScEAdzo_xScozxGdc9PO03g=w830-h893-no)

Then I'll pull the end, so the spiral or rubber band should collapse. Correct?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 03, 2016, 12:55:17 AM
Why don't you try some of that stuff out and see what you come up with.

Well the bottom part was more of a question than anything.

The middle part about taking a material to its liquid form was a question as well. If you thought bringing a solid to a liquid would prove anything. (remember this is your hypothesis, so I want to make sure I do not add nor subtract any context).

How accurate of a scale do you consider necessary? I don't have too much of a selection of them, but I have a couple that are relatively low read and tight tolerance. Also was wondering what you consider a needed amount of air pressure for test 1.

I am thinking drill a quick disconnect nipple into a piece of wood, metal, and something very light haven't decided yet. Run air pressure through it if I am understanding the test. Shit I am so tired I can't even think straight.


Edit...neutrino..did you just draw all that up? I like your way of thinking, action, not much bark.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 12:59:30 AM
Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?
The force pushing it back is the compression of air inside the syringe, then the water, aided by the push of atmospheric pressure upon the water.
Your near vacuum thought would not produce any force on its own, it merely creates that lower pressure against the higher pressure compression that you initially pushed..
Whatever. Do you accept that you'll get a cavity with tremendously lower atmospheric pressure? Like 1 tenth of what we have? Will then same object weigh less in this cavity?
Take a scale and measure it.
Ok. I'll conduct the experiment. I just want to be sure it will be genuine from your point of view.
I'll take a syringe and will glue a piece of rubber or a spiral and some object in the following way:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Z6QRJYzz0RFP78nJi-sx7UaqAywg0XfJ-tUPrkE0zKG4NHCik9FNSPTvmZetIjz2wT7JwDAC5aTkPw6Y9rqFaA3ZJOrhCEHLqKFGfnTDdC4gyHyrMLV4yqoOazeWtXFU7AT7znwILuSlJIFJ0-XPCESQzyeV1NsY6_V4wu_qXREK_Bw07LlF9Gfydf987M9FbV0drCE8DznMaat27EfaAIufsQRxUzFunSJuRc_ICd3W-NYqcfmSc-pvKfmXZC_dUFWg14_dQGlaY97PzLEkGqgsTdrAHOuLG-DvV2Qkoa4d6nEeTJ1lkEgoQhaCq0rWmRWghP56addG0zooGfvmyZy-KU2wx3fh4otRGop6yp3R5xXOayz-xVEE35KYB07IcUYq6YQHWSQtvNwaEoDF-I2_h5tDCaZNqx66j3Cfk2V8vJgS0VOpeVISX8cyJqHdxI7BJw_HFZ1-aDwlLVNM8asYSynFTbGhye6-jN4UfTdFBGZ0YyAjCcm2joLfMo9vXWqJTG5DGld1N1RWZgBnr2oM-4-8_F6ey3jraQe8xDwImD44jj3Fb26Pp38fXWorbLI9CH4q2vEPsCisA7D8ecng-1pzNKE=w709-h893-no)

I'm taking a syringe and pull it into transparent container with water.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XM_6HowWiUjDnjaK0eObko8NVeHWP2kWpfO1j_QP7RxwQISRHPwltI93dwyh6aK098XJyndng8CEl-CGD7IdyDvcwuAYsQSTJZ0rjY-fyyGKvD1H8Fv6aCZA1xhcjGx-VfXWGXGPOJSKcwYtJZgaPs4psAuZpJTiLzRQQj9gTKIwz93ekHPD4H28V6bdQuTCaLhqeJmxGrvMi7kNxyyAxaDEAP31g2Okwm4CrQANbSntdO2rP6RKXA8Y1xP3IJxOcFp3B3egK0bZRPc4ME-Qb6Ni8g4u6iBUJHC9emHooUxS1H_tflYSyw4MpzWJn55ixWy2-rYEJcfiHLB9gPaz6j7mc3XT0rTJxCs68UqwfDS1jfC95Mb-FGSDBLrDNod-wgfymPds7eqbutzeNDmd1SxuSQ-8zwK3weDJfEKqbjUhb5Czqw0cyfjLdjYTaYvkZXF8KiD9yBeFpk7kOZcMjcPG71p4KGUWqJAXn0buTpzO0Rvl9423xnAlxEMXlg-px6a1BPsu-P5BlJC_4PbZxYWeM1uuRXVejPaRhPxcgt8cK8zDzrQVbEocq5EOw7dVUzZBsZZ-ScEAdzo_xScozxGdc9PO03g=w830-h893-no)

Then I'll pull the end, so the spiral or rubber band should collapse. Correct?
Let's see what you come up with.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 03, 2016, 01:07:04 AM
Babyhighspeed, yes I drew it. Thanks.

Scepti? I'm sorry, I just don't understand! I want you to tell me what are your expectations from such an experiment. I don't want to conduct the experiment and then you say: "Oh it's an illusion, it's the distortions and chromatic aberrations of the lens of your videocam"... etc etc..
Be man and define what should be the outcomes and how you would treat them!

BTW, I do have access to lab with extremely precise scales (0.0001 of a gram!) which I photograph and put a pic in this thread at the beginning. All my lab equipment as well as my 11" telescope is at your disposal. Let's experiment!!!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 03, 2016, 01:25:56 AM
Babyhighspeed, yes I drew it. Thanks.

Scepti? I'm sorry, I just don't understand! I want you to tell me what are your expectations from such an experiment. I don't want to conduct the experiment and then you say: "Oh it's an illusion, it's the distortions and chromatic aberrations of the lens of your videocam"... etc etc..
Be man and define what should be the outcomes and how you would treat them!

BTW, I do have access to lab with extremely precise scales (0.0001 of a gram!) which I photograph and put a pic in this thread at the beginning. All my lab equipment as well as my 11" telescope is at your disposal. Let's experiment!!!

Sweet!!!! This is the kind of mentality I have been flapping my internet chops for!! I am excited! As I have offered before here I will make sure you know it is extended to you, my whole machine/fab shops are at your disposal.

Having scales of that sensitivity is sweet and will surely come in handy. One must be an electromagnet one?

You won't be creating a vacuum per say with the syringe test, but just a pocket of low pressure. However, from my understanding of the hypothesis that is all that would be required to perform the experiment.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 01:33:46 AM
Why don't you try some of that stuff out and see what you come up with.

Well the bottom part was more of a question than anything.

The middle part about taking a material to its liquid form was a question as well. If you thought bringing a solid to a liquid would prove anything. (remember this is your hypothesis, so I want to make sure I do not add nor subtract any context).

How accurate of a scale do you consider necessary? I don't have too much of a selection of them, but I have a couple that are relatively low read and tight tolerance. Also was wondering what you consider a needed amount of air pressure for test 1.

I am thinking drill a quick disconnect nipple into a piece of wood, metal, and something very light haven't decided yet. Run air pressure through it if I am understanding the test. Shit I am so tired I can't even think straight.


Edit...neutrino..did you just draw all that up? I like your way of thinking, action, not much bark.
Try all the things out that your mind can muster and let's see what comes of it. Don't look on it as an argument against me, look on it as a small step into finding out a reality, instead of the fantasy we've been told to swallow.
Do it regardless of what you think the Earth system is.

You've spent your life being told the stories and given the supposed math and reasons for the one you adhered to. Put it on the back burner and look into alternates. If none satisfy you then you have no more need to challenge and you can go on your merry way in life in the knowledge that you're happy with your lot.

I will continue to push my way through for the alternate because I'm more than sure there is the alternate to the indoctrinated one.

Anyway, let's see what happens.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 01:38:24 AM
Babyhighspeed, yes I drew it. Thanks.

Scepti? I'm sorry, I just don't understand! I want you to tell me what are your expectations from such an experiment. I don't want to conduct the experiment and then you say: "Oh it's an illusion, it's the distortions and chromatic aberrations of the lens of your videocam"... etc etc..
Be man and define what should be the outcomes and how you would treat them!

BTW, I do have access to lab with extremely precise scales (0.0001 of a gram!) which I photograph and put a pic in this thread at the beginning. All my lab equipment as well as my 11" telescope is at your disposal. Let's experiment!!!
Ok, let's experiment. You know what your first one is, so let's see what occurs with this. I've got a quite a few for you to perform if you have the equipment.
One step at a time and let's see the results.
I'm not going to just dive in and leave myself open to being twisted out of context, so I need to see what's going on. If you understand that then go ahead and perform. If not, then fair enough.
It's up to you but remember, you should be doing this for yourself mainly and not just as a way to shout "nah nah scepti, you're wrong" or whatever.
I've had this crap with Sokarul, so let's see what you are willing to do, if you're serious.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: disputeone on August 03, 2016, 03:19:11 AM
Quote from: Wikipedia
Archimedes' principle indicates that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces and it acts in the upward direction at the centre of mass of the displaced fluid. Archimedes' principle is a law of physics fundamental to fluid mechanics. It was formulated by Archimedes of Syracuse.

Quote
Precision weighings require a correction when the object being weighed is light, has a large volume, and is made under atmospheric pressure. The object being weighed displaces a certain amount of air. This creates a buoyancy force that is equal to the weight of the volume of air displaced. It is the same effect that occurs if you make a weighing when the object is weighed under water, only smaller because the density of air is less than the density of water. If the analytical balance is a double beam tray balance it is actually the DIFFERENCE in the volume of the object and the volume of the weights in the other pan. On an electronic balance the buoyancy is still present but there are no counter weights. The correction is of the order of a couple of milligrams, but in precision weighing this is not negligible. There are various designs and techniques to cancel this correction by keeping the volume of the sample constant and doing a weight determination by difference, but these techniques are not commonly applied except in high precision determinations where high accuracy is required.

https://stab-iitb.org/newton-mirror/askasci/gen01/gen01228.htm

This is really interesting, also one of the most constuctive threads I've seen here.

Your syringe experiment seems really solid neutrino.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: markjo on August 03, 2016, 07:12:31 AM
I think Denpressure is pretty self-explanatory and very logical to say the least.
Not if you know anything at all about physics, it isn't.

For instance, I saw on TV today a program about sharpshooters and it was talking about how the bullet makes an arched trajectory due to gravity. But that is incorrect. The bullet makes a curved trajectory due to Air Pressure. It's the air infront of the bullet that pushes it down.
Why would air in front of the bullet push it down?  It seems that the air above the bullet should push it down.

Likewise, If you shoot the bullet straight up it's the air that slows it down, not gravity.
Actually, both air and gravity will slow the bullet down.  It's not a one or the other situation.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 03, 2016, 09:38:47 AM
Scepti, I think a good test for the 3 experiment would be on low pressure.  In an environment in which the air pressure is lowered the weight of the object would decrease because less air is being pressed on it.  Is my understanding correct?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 03, 2016, 11:10:49 AM
Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 03, 2016, 12:48:45 PM
Would measuring the difference between the force required to push and lift an object work?

Submarines have pressure pushing against their entire hull, not just the top.  At least that is what we are told.  Maybe an experiment measuring the pressure exerted on an object could shed some light on the matter.  If it is equal then someone can refer to the first experiment I suggested.

How about releasing a fluid in a chamber and seeing what happens?  It should eventually be denser towards the bottom or an explanation is needed to explain why the atmosphere gets denser at lower altitudes.

I will agree with those that said this is the most constructive thread I have seen.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 03, 2016, 12:50:24 PM
Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?
I said this earlier, and he just responded with calling me an idiot for not understanding.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 03, 2016, 01:05:01 PM
Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?
I said this earlier, and he just responded with calling me an idiot for not understanding.

Yeah I think we need some clarification on that one. 

In a similar thread :
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.

According to this analogy what matters is how many people are standing on you in this pyramid.  No amount of people stacked to my side matter.  In this example if you're lying down you're going to be able to stack a lot more people than if you were standing.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 03, 2016, 01:17:20 PM
Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2016, 01:39:38 PM
Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 01:43:25 PM
Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.
All very convenient, but no measurements to prove.

Air seeps, how?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 03, 2016, 02:01:44 PM
Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.
All very convenient, but no measurements to prove.

Air seeps, how?

Through the porousness of objects.  This is something Experiment 2 can also test for.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 03, 2016, 02:07:43 PM
Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.

If I'm understanding this correctly then it seems like there's two separate effects going on then.

1.  The atmospheric human pyramid.

2.  Air permeating an object to make it lighter?

This inside a balloon analogy I'm not so sure about it.  If you were inside a pressurized chamber you'd feel the pressure evenly distributed all around you.  I don't think it would prefer a specific direction.  I think we can demonstrate that just by observing a tire inflating.  It doesn't prefer a particular side.

Considering that humans are non permeable I think this experiment is still valid then as the human body wouldn't be affected by effect #2.  Well I guess there are our lungs holding air, so maybe the experiment should be conducted as we breathe out?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:08:43 PM
Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.
All very convenient, but no measurements to prove.

Air seeps, how?

Through the porousness of objects.  This is something Experiment 2 can also test for.
Units of porousness please.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 02:27:07 PM
Scepti, I think a good test for the 3 experiment would be on low pressure.  In an environment in which the air pressure is lowered the weight of the object would decrease because less air is being pressed on it.  Is my understanding correct?
This is a little bit more tricky because of expansion of molecules inside an object, as well as scales put into the same environment.
It's still worth trying but it requires patience with results and especially objects used.

You see, it's not just a case of air pressed onto it it's a case of the object pushing into it but we can't do that because we would have it all inside the chamber.
It's a really tricky thing.

Think about this.

A window clamp placed on a window will simply fall off if just placed against the window. However, if that lever is pushed down to evacuate air from the rubber seal, it will clampo to the window....but why?

We know that the atmosphere is around 14.7 psi around that clamp but it was also 14.7 psi inside the seal before the lever was pushed down. Because of this we know there's an equilibrium.
However,  if the lever is pushed down and atmosphere is evacuated from the seal, that pressure evacuated now adds to the pressure back onto that clamp and pushes it hard onto that window.
Now people can argue that the pressure isn't much but it clearly is when you can pick up a real heavy window pane with them.

The issue is we can't measure this on any scale plate but we know that the clamp is pushed hard against the window.

It's hard to explain fully without using analogies to try to get people to understand it all. Jane has come the closest to understanding it all and a  few others are getting the grasp.
You seem to be well on track for grasping it all, so I hope you'll see where issues arise in trying to outright prove it all. We need to keep pushing this with all kinds of thoughts.

Jane could join in as well and any other serious person who wishes to delve into it without bias.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:36:11 PM
Scepti, I think a good test for the 3 experiment would be on low pressure.  In an environment in which the air pressure is lowered the weight of the object would decrease because less air is being pressed on it.  Is my understanding correct?
This is a little bit more tricky because of expansion of molecules inside an object, as well as scales put into the same environment.
It's still worth trying but it requires patience with results and especially objects used.

You see, it's not just a case of air pressed onto it it's a case of the object pushing into it but we can't do that because we would have it all inside the chamber.
It's a really tricky thing.

Think about this.

A window clamp placed on a window will simply fall off if just placed against the window. However, if that lever is pushed down to evacuate air from the rubber seal, it will clampo to the window....but why?

We know that the atmosphere is around 14.7 psi around that clamp but it was also 14.7 psi inside the seal before the lever was pushed down. Because of this we know there's an equilibrium.
However,  if the lever is pushed down and atmosphere is evacuated from the seal, that pressure evacuated now adds to the pressure back onto that clamp and pushes it hard onto that window.
Now people can argue that the pressure isn't much but it clearly is when you can pick up a real heavy window pane with them.

The issue is we can't measure this on any scale plate but we know that the clamp is pushed hard against the window.

It's hard to explain fully without using analogies to try to get people to understand it all. Jane has come the closest to understanding it all and a  few others are getting the grasp.
You seem to be well on track for grasping it all, so I hope you'll see where issues arise in trying to outright prove it all. We need to keep pushing this with all kinds of thoughts.

Jane could join in as well and any other serious person who wishes to delve into it without bias.
How much pressure might be evacuated, do you mean air?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 02:37:58 PM
Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?
This is where people need to understand the stack system.
The best way to describe the stack system is to turn ourselves upside down and try to swim  to the bottom of a deep swimming pool.
Now imagine that the swimming pool is above you. Now walk in it. Now jump as hard as you can into it and see how far you get before you get pushed back up like a cork.

Think about this when you jump in the air from a standing start and walking along a flat surface.

Back to your brick.
Have you ever wondered why it's hard to keep standing?
Have you ever wondered why it's much easier to lay down?

The reason is because the atmosphere is being pushed out of the way of your standing mass and your head and shoulders are compressing it and forcing it down the sides of your body.
The thing is it only clamps you at the sides but at the top it's pushing back onto you and forcing your body into the ground but your feet and leg/body muscles stop it. The thing is, it's not without consequence, which is aching feet and tiredness.

Laying down spreads your body over a large surface area and even though you displace the same atmospheric pressure, you do so over your entire body .

The brick is the same.

To make you understand, just imagine you're in bed and covered with a heavy blanket. You feel comfortable enough laid under it but try and stand up with that blanket hanging down from your head and shoulders.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 03, 2016, 02:38:08 PM
My suggestion:

Let permeability p = the amount of air an object can absorb/the non gaseous mass of that object.  A ratio.

example.  Ice cream is 40% air.  Therefore p=.4

Now let's define the other effect of Denspressure:

Stack pressure s = the distance between the top of an object and the top of the atmosphere * the surface area exposed to the top of this object.

So we have weight = s * p.

Now before you tell me my equation sucks let me remind you it is currently the only equation that describes Denspressure.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 02:44:31 PM
Would measuring the difference between the force required to push and lift an object work?

Submarines have pressure pushing against their entire hull, not just the top.  At least that is what we are told.  Maybe an experiment measuring the pressure exerted on an object could shed some light on the matter.  If it is equal then someone can refer to the first experiment I suggested.

How about releasing a fluid in a chamber and seeing what happens?  It should eventually be denser towards the bottom or an explanation is needed to explain why the atmosphere gets denser at lower altitudes.

I will agree with those that said this is the most constructive thread I have seen.
Take a look at a centrifuge for separation of liquids and solids.
It works because the force created on the spin pushes the atmosphere from the elements and makes them sink.

Place a block of wood in water and if its porous enough, it will float. Place a lead weight onto that wood and let it be forced to the bottom of a deep pool and leave it.
If left long enough it will have most of its atmosphere forced out and eventually stay rooted to the bottom of the pool after the lead is taken away.

Now imagine weighing that wood before and after is was sunk?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 02:49:47 PM
Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.
The only change inside would be a small expansion of molecules due to the heating of the inner of your house due to heat of people and maybe central heating, etc.
You create a low pressure inside and you can see this by opening your front and back doors.
You can see the force of a pressure change when a door slams into your face.

Pretty strong, right?
However, it's only minor but can be more forceful, especially in the event of a back draft as firemen would call it.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 02:50:56 PM
Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.
Yeah, this is what I was saying.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: hoppy on August 03, 2016, 02:52:54 PM
Would measuring the difference between the force required to push and lift an object work?

Submarines have pressure pushing against their entire hull, not just the top.  At least that is what we are told.  Maybe an experiment measuring the pressure exerted on an object could shed some light on the matter.  If it is equal then someone can refer to the first experiment I suggested.

How about releasing a fluid in a chamber and seeing what happens?  It should eventually be denser towards the bottom or an explanation is needed to explain why the atmosphere gets denser at lower altitudes.

I will agree with those that said this is the most constructive thread I have seen.
That is because the idiot trolls haven't started their destructive bs.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2016, 02:56:46 PM
Would there be any mileage in examining the behaviour of lighter gases? Presumably gases essentially would become part of a stack, hence why lighter gases like helium rise etc. Might just be related to experiment 1, but if we create a chamber (airtight under the RE model, perhaps not so much according to denpressure, but still decently effective at keeping gas inside, which we can ascertain by various well-known chemistry tests by, say, keeping a lit flame nearby outside) and put an object on a set of scales within it, then would altering the composition of the air/stack around said object alter the weight we read?
It's partly down to psi, but my thinking is that if weight is down to the effort needed to displace air, then if air is made more dense by the higher presence of a heavier gas, for example, then the necessary effort would increase. Thus, even if the composition of the stack is only altered for a neighbourhood around an object, the pressure ought to be similarly altered.

Seems related to experiment 1 like I said, though possibly more unwieldy. (If nothing else though, examples of how the models vary can aid understanding).

As far as raw numbers go, would an inflated balloon be an effective way to gauge them? If it's filled with air, then presumably the only increase in weight measured of an inflated balloon vs an empty balloon would be down to the change in volume? In that case, would that be an effective gauge of what force is needed to deal with a certain volume (as the composition and density and volume of the balloon free of air wouldn't have changed)? From that we could gain denpressure-relevant measurements of density for each object.
I'm assuming that the behaviour of air relative to the stack in this case doesn't alter, any more than it would for air in a room, so the air present within the balloon serves a similar purpose to that present in a porous object. Let me know if I've misunderstood.
I'll admit to not being a huge fan of the demand-for-numbers arguing, much more beneficial to get the theory down and understood before anyone starts plugging in values, but if nothing else it might be a way to make Inquisitve do something for once.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM
Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?
This is where people need to understand the stack system.
The best way to describe the stack system is to turn ourselves upside down and try to swim  to the bottom of a deep swimming pool.
Now imagine that the swimming pool is above you. Now walk in it. Now jump as hard as you can into it and see how far you get before you get pushed back up like a cork.

Think about this when you jump in the air from a standing start and walking along a flat surface.

Back to your brick.
Have you ever wondered why it's hard to keep standing?
Have you ever wondered why it's much easier to lay down?

The reason is because the atmosphere is being pushed out of the way of your standing mass and your head and shoulders are compressing it and forcing it down the sides of your body.
The thing is it only clamps you at the sides but at the top it's pushing back onto you and forcing your body into the ground but your feet and leg/body muscles stop it. The thing is, it's not without consequence, which is aching feet and tiredness.

Laying down spreads your body over a large surface area and even though you displace the same atmospheric pressure, you do so over your entire body .

The brick is the same.

To make you understand, just imagine you're in bed and covered with a heavy blanket. You feel comfortable enough laid under it but try and stand up with that blanket hanging down from your head and shoulders.
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

Understand the units of pressure are mass/area.  Like lbs/sq inch.  You cannot use the term in any other way.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 03:01:52 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.
Please explain more.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 03, 2016, 03:11:15 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 03, 2016, 03:13:53 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.
Please explain more.

The gist seems to be that the force exerted by denpressure is down to the fact that we displace air. It takes a certain amount of force to do that, so there's an equal and opposite reaction on us. We push the upwards-stacked air, and it pushed back. The swimming pool analogy is a good one to get this idea across: just imagine standing on your head (assuming uniform density of the water, if we're being picky). To fully submerge yourself, whether horizontal or vertical, displaces exactly the same amount of water. As such, exactly the same amount of pressure would act on the body.
If you've ever been in a pool, you know the water pushes you up: and yet it's easier to float if you lie on your back than stand up, because when lying the upwards/downwards pressure is spread out.

I'll admit to not being sold on denpressure as a viable model, but it's just silly to claim it can't answer questions which it definitely can.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Surface area is a factor I believe, but more when it comes to the distribution of force. The total amount of force strictly depends on the volume of air displaced (hence why porous objects would displace less and so exert less force). It's quite neat, actually.
Analogy's analogy, it's never going to be perfect. I will say I don't believe Scepti adheres to the model of molecules you're likely familiar with, but even so bricks don't need to be cemented together to stack.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:20:21 PM
Would there be any mileage in examining the behaviour of lighter gases? Presumably gases essentially would become part of a stack, hence why lighter gases like helium rise etc. Might just be related to experiment 1, but if we create a chamber (airtight under the RE model, perhaps not so much according to denpressure, but still decently effective at keeping gas inside, which we can ascertain by various well-known chemistry tests by, say, keeping a lit flame nearby outside) and put an object on a set of scales within it, then would altering the composition of the air/stack around said object alter the weight we read?
It's partly down to psi, but my thinking is that if weight is down to the effort needed to displace air, then if air is made more dense by the higher presence of a heavier gas, for example, then the necessary effort would increase. Thus, even if the composition of the stack is only altered for a neighbourhood around an object, the pressure ought to be similarly altered.

Seems related to experiment 1 like I said, though possibly more unwieldy. (If nothing else though, examples of how the models vary can aid understanding).

As far as raw numbers go, would an inflated balloon be an effective way to gauge them? If it's filled with air, then presumably the only increase in weight measured of an inflated balloon vs an empty balloon would be down to the change in volume? In that case, would that be an effective gauge of what force is needed to deal with a certain volume (as the composition and density and volume of the balloon free of air wouldn't have changed)? From that we could gain denpressure-relevant measurements of density for each object.
I'm assuming that the behaviour of air relative to the stack in this case doesn't alter, any more than it would for air in a room, so the air present within the balloon serves a similar purpose to that present in a porous object. Let me know if I've misunderstood.
I'll admit to not being a huge fan of the demand-for-numbers arguing, much more beneficial to get the theory down and understood before anyone starts plugging in values, but if nothing else it might be a way to make Inquisitve do something for once.
To be fair, I think all kinds of avenues can be tried.
This topic should be more about finding the truth of experiments or potentials of it, rather than discounting it.
I'm as rigid as hell on this. I'm very strong willed on it and will not discount anything that can potentially make a point.

This topic should be about us all looking for facts or close to facts - or gaining a strong theory among many instead of just a extreme minority, if possible, because I'm sure many want some truth's if at all possible.

You have a good logical brain on you, Jane, as do some others on here. Let's all use the logic and the basics to sift through it all, no matter what thoughts come to mind.
The more people willing to think and experiment, the more chance we have of showing something for it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:30:59 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.
Please explain more.

The gist seems to be that the force exerted by denpressure is down to the fact that we displace air. It takes a certain amount of force to do that, so there's an equal and opposite reaction on us. We push the upwards-stacked air, and it pushed back. The swimming pool analogy is a good one to get this idea across: just imagine standing on your head (assuming uniform density of the water, if we're being picky). To fully submerge yourself, whether horizontal or vertical, displaces exactly the same amount of water. As such, exactly the same amount of pressure would act on the body.
If you've ever been in a pool, you know the water pushes you up: and yet it's easier to float if you lie on your back than stand up, because when lying the upwards/downwards pressure is spread out.

I'll admit to not being sold on denpressure as a viable model, but it's just silly to claim it can't answer questions which it definitely can.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Surface area is a factor I believe, but more when it comes to the distribution of force. The total amount of force strictly depends on the volume of air displaced (hence why porous objects would displace less and so exert less force). It's quite neat, actually.
Analogy's analogy, it's never going to be perfect. I will say I don't believe Scepti adheres to the model of molecules you're likely familiar with, but even so bricks don't need to be cemented together to stack.
I think it's a literal breath of fresh air that you actually grasp it. I know you're not sold on it all but the fact that you're making massive inroads, gives me hope that you won't abandon it and will keep digging at it; because I believe that if you do and see it as the basics, I believe you will start to see a lot more things in a different light. I hope so anyway.

There's a few others on here that are getting to grips, so I'm pleased about that.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: markjo on August 03, 2016, 03:34:47 PM
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.
That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:39:38 PM
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.
That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.
You can move through water can't you?
All you're doing is moving through less dense water.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sokarul on August 03, 2016, 03:50:19 PM
Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?
I said this earlier, and he just responded with calling me an idiot for not understanding.
It's a shame such a simple a simple idea destroys "air pressure is gravity" yet iwitness and the little kid will keep going on and on.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 03, 2016, 04:12:47 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Charming Anarchist on August 03, 2016, 06:54:47 PM
Magician's trick. 
Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: markjo on August 03, 2016, 07:29:33 PM
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.
That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.
You can move through water can't you?
All you're doing is moving through less dense water.
Liquid water molecules aren't connected.  In your terms, the water molecules are stacked on each other, but they are free to slide around.  That's why you can move through water, but can't move through objects where the molecules are connected (solid objects).
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 03, 2016, 10:29:36 PM
Scepti, I think a good test for the 3 experiment would be on low pressure.  In an environment in which the air pressure is lowered the weight of the object would decrease because less air is being pressed on it.  Is my understanding correct?
This is a little bit more tricky because of expansion of molecules inside an object, as well as scales put into the same environment.
It's still worth trying but it requires patience with results and especially objects used.

You see, it's not just a case of air pressed onto it it's a case of the object pushing into it but we can't do that because we would have it all inside the chamber.
It's a really tricky thing.

Think about this.

A window clamp placed on a window will simply fall off if just placed against the window. However, if that lever is pushed down to evacuate air from the rubber seal, it will clampo to the window....but why?

We know that the atmosphere is around 14.7 psi around that clamp but it was also 14.7 psi inside the seal before the lever was pushed down. Because of this we know there's an equilibrium.
However,  if the lever is pushed down and atmosphere is evacuated from the seal, that pressure evacuated now adds to the pressure back onto that clamp and pushes it hard onto that window.
Now people can argue that the pressure isn't much but it clearly is when you can pick up a real heavy window pane with them.

The issue is we can't measure this on any scale plate but we know that the clamp is pushed hard against the window.

It's hard to explain fully without using analogies to try to get people to understand it all. Jane has come the closest to understanding it all and a  few others are getting the grasp.
You seem to be well on track for grasping it all, so I hope you'll see where issues arise in trying to outright prove it all. We need to keep pushing this with all kinds of thoughts.

Jane could join in as well and any other serious person who wishes to delve into it without bias.
Scepti do you mean thing like this:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31v4IkR4V4L._SY300_.jpg)
I'm sorry, there are many trivial things I don't know (not a native English speaker).

If yes, I'll explain you the 'my' way how it works. Usually when you push the clamp (?) against glass, you let the air out of it's inner cavity but since it is elastic, it tries to restore its previous shape, thus creating a bigger cavity. But there is no air. So the atmosphere pushes it back.
The misconception is that initially (when you do not pull the clamp) it has little force that keeps it in-place. However when you try to pull it then you create a bigger cavity and there is more surface that potentially could collapse back, so the force strengthens. It's like a tension force - the more you pull the more it resists to pulling.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 03, 2016, 10:50:08 PM
There is a bug in experiment 2: the wood piece and probably the sponge will float on a water surface.

EXPERIMENT 2:

The Density of an Object is determined on how much Atmosphere it can absorb.  If the atmosphere is replaced with another material or it is squished to remove the atmosphere then it will weight the same in units to volume as other objects at the same volume.

....
....
....

To test this experiment we'll need a control and different materials that weigh different amounts but are roughly the same volume.

What you'll need:
4+ Measuring Containers, all need to be the same size and able to measure precisely.
Metal - Same size as wood and sponge
Wood
Sponge
Water
Scale

Instructions:
Place each object in a Container
Weigh each container and record results

Pour water into each container to the same measurement level.  (The water should cover each item completely with some extra room above the object).
Leave containers overnight to allow for water to go into the porous areas of each object and remove the atmosphere.

Add any water needed to each container so that each container's water level matches.  This will ensure that each container is holding the same volume of material.
Weigh each container and record results.

Hypothesis:
By leaving the water in overnight this should allow all of the objects to absorb the water and remove any atmosphere inside of the object.  Because weight is determined on density all of the densities of these objects should match and each container will now weigh the same amount.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 03, 2016, 11:40:03 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?

Scepti doesn't believe in vacuum chambers. He claims all videos of vacuum chambers are fake. Chalk it up to another entire industry that must be liars and crooks for the FE model to even be feasible.

 I have a different problem with den pressure.

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 11:56:57 PM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?
The external atmosphere is pushed away which allows the atmosphere inside the chamber to expand into the lower pressure created by that pump push.
All molecules are under pressure and under different friction/agitation dependent on energy applied. (we won't go into this part because it will just get confusing).

Basically molecules expand against each other and the more there is, the less they can expand against each other, unless they are allowed to do so by a force that gives them freedom to expand.
A pump attached to a chamber will turn equilibrium of pressure externally and internally into added pressure externally due to the pump pushing back the atmosphere to allow the expansion of molecules to take their place in that external atmosphere. And this amount adds extra pressure onto the chamber that is also weakened by the expansion of molecules inside.

A simple analogy is to imagine a container full of sponge balls that is sat in the middle of another massive container of sponge balls.
Ok, the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber again st the compression of sponge balls out of that container.
From this point on if you picture the sponge ball, you can see that there is no free space. Just sponge balls compressed into each other.

Add energy like a pump and push sponge balls away from the container, it compresses them more externally but leaves the sponge balls inside the container to decompress a little, allowing some to take their place externally, meaning there are less sponge balls inside the container but more added externally from that container to now take their place as added external pressure against it, assuming we seal the exit from this point.

This is your so called vacuum but as you can see - or imagine - it's nothing of the sort and is only a lower internal pressure but still full of sponge balls that are still all attached, only less compressed.

This is why you can never evacuate a chamber - ever.
You could only evacuate enough (assuming the strongest container, ever and the strongest every pump) until all of the molecules inside cease to vibrate under pressure or change of pressure. This is when you would have no more expansion of molecules onto molecules to create anymore push out of the container.


I think a few will get this. Maybe you will.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 12:05:35 AM
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.
That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.
You can move through water can't you?
All you're doing is moving through less dense water.
Liquid water molecules aren't connected.  In your terms, the water molecules are stacked on each other, but they are free to slide around.  That's why you can move through water, but can't move through objects where the molecules are connected (solid objects).
Slide around is a good thought  but the issue is still the same. All molecules expand and contract into each other and never create a true free space, just a bigger energetic compression by expansion.

A thought for you: Picture all the molecules as washing up bubbles. Take a close look at washing up bubbles and try and count how many different sizes you see.
The truth is they're uncountable because there's just too many different stages of expansion going on and that's only what you can see due to reflection of light off of them.

Imagine inside each bubble there are the same things going on with even smaller compressed or expanded molecules. And within them we go again and again and so on.
We simply do not have the eyes nor the tools to realistically go that far, although we will be told we do.
Anyway that's another argument.

Basically this is just what we know as the simplest forms of gas/liquids.

The more dense stuff is simply more compressed matter within matter within matter and so on and so on depending on where they sit in Earth or what energy was applied, which again is another argument and will deviate this one.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 12:12:48 AM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?
The external atmosphere is pushed away which allows the atmosphere inside the chamber to expand into the lower pressure created by that pump push.
All molecules are under pressure and under different friction/agitation dependent on energy applied. (we won't go into this part because it will just get confusing).

Basically molecules expand against each other and the more there is, the less they can expand against each other, unless they are allowed to do so by a force that gives them freedom to expand.
A pump attached to a chamber will turn equilibrium of pressure externally and internally into added pressure externally due to the pump pushing back the atmosphere to allow the expansion of molecules to take their place in that external atmosphere. And this amount adds extra pressure onto the chamber that is also weakened by the expansion of molecules inside.

A simple analogy is to imagine a container full of sponge balls that is sat in the middle of another massive container of sponge balls.
Ok, the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber again st the compression of sponge balls out of that container.
From this point on if you picture the sponge ball, you can see that there is no free space. Just sponge balls compressed into each other.

Add energy like a pump and push sponge balls away from the container, it compresses them more externally but leaves the sponge balls inside the container to decompress a little, allowing some to take their place externally, meaning there are less sponge balls inside the container but more added externally from that container to now take their place as added external pressure against it, assuming we seal the exit from this point.

This is your so called vacuum but as you can see - or imagine - it's nothing of the sort and is only a lower internal pressure but still full of sponge balls that are still all attached, only less compressed.

This is why you can never evacuate a chamber - ever.
You could only evacuate enough (assuming the strongest container, ever and the strongest every pump) until all of the molecules inside cease to vibrate under pressure or change of pressure. This is when you would have no more expansion of molecules onto molecules to create anymore push out of the container.


I think a few will get this. Maybe you will.

In your analogy, you cannot keep removing air from a chamber because of the lack of interior pressure will cause the chamber to rupture? You didn't clearly explain what will happen if you keep trying to remove "sponge balls" from the vacuum chamber.

Why would you seal the exit? Wouldn't you want exterior pressure to be normalized? It's not like we're trying to rupture the chamber here.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 12:18:20 AM
Scepti, I think a good test for the 3 experiment would be on low pressure.  In an environment in which the air pressure is lowered the weight of the object would decrease because less air is being pressed on it.  Is my understanding correct?
This is a little bit more tricky because of expansion of molecules inside an object, as well as scales put into the same environment.
It's still worth trying but it requires patience with results and especially objects used.

You see, it's not just a case of air pressed onto it it's a case of the object pushing into it but we can't do that because we would have it all inside the chamber.
It's a really tricky thing.

Think about this.

A window clamp placed on a window will simply fall off if just placed against the window. However, if that lever is pushed down to evacuate air from the rubber seal, it will clampo to the window....but why?

We know that the atmosphere is around 14.7 psi around that clamp but it was also 14.7 psi inside the seal before the lever was pushed down. Because of this we know there's an equilibrium.
However,  if the lever is pushed down and atmosphere is evacuated from the seal, that pressure evacuated now adds to the pressure back onto that clamp and pushes it hard onto that window.
Now people can argue that the pressure isn't much but it clearly is when you can pick up a real heavy window pane with them.

The issue is we can't measure this on any scale plate but we know that the clamp is pushed hard against the window.

It's hard to explain fully without using analogies to try to get people to understand it all. Jane has come the closest to understanding it all and a  few others are getting the grasp.
You seem to be well on track for grasping it all, so I hope you'll see where issues arise in trying to outright prove it all. We need to keep pushing this with all kinds of thoughts.

Jane could join in as well and any other serious person who wishes to delve into it without bias.
Scepti do you mean thing like this:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31v4IkR4V4L._SY300_.jpg)
I'm sorry, there are many trivial things I don't know (not a native English speaker).

If yes, I'll explain you the 'my' way how it works. Usually when you push the clamp (?) against glass, you let the air out of it's inner cavity but since it is elastic, it tries to restore its previous shape, thus creating a bigger cavity. But there is no air. So the atmosphere pushes it back.
The misconception is that initially (when you do not pull the clamp) it has little force that keeps it in-place. However when you try to pull it then you create a bigger cavity and there is more surface that potentially could collapse back, so the force strengthens. It's like a tension force - the more you pull the more it resists to pulling.
Yes, that's on a small scale but it's not exactly how you're saying.

Here's a better example and I'll explain it.


(https://s31.postimg.org/dy0gpryvf/image.png) (https://postimg.org/image/rexf8n96v/)

Above are the Magdeberg hemispheres. Now like the window clamp, these work in the same way, except they are clamped to each other.

The atmosphere is allowed to expand out of the spheres by a pump, as I explained a little earlier.
This causes the atmospheric pressure to gain in compression upon those spheres by the amount you have just allowed to evacuate from them. It's basically clamped back by the extra push trying to crush the hemispheres (now a sphere) back to equalisation of pressure because an energetic action (pump) was made and the reaction cannot equalise due to the tap being turned off.

Those spheres could not be pushed apart by horses each side. And to think that those spheres still contain atmospheric pressure, only it's a more expanded (lower pressure) less amount of molecules inside because the rest of them are outside adding to the pressure upon it and that's the difference of the strength acting on it.


Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 12:29:12 AM
Scepti doesn't believe in vacuum chambers. He claims all videos of vacuum chambers are fake. Chalk it up to another entire industry that must be liars and crooks for the FE model to even be feasible.
I do believe in the chambers. I don't believe in vacuums on Earth. It's that simple - and neither should you. It's not about lying, it's about logical common sense.
 
I have a different problem with den pressure.

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.
If you thoroughly read up you'll see it's explained.



Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 12:31:08 AM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?
The external atmosphere is pushed away which allows the atmosphere inside the chamber to expand into the lower pressure created by that pump push.
All molecules are under pressure and under different friction/agitation dependent on energy applied. (we won't go into this part because it will just get confusing).

Basically molecules expand against each other and the more there is, the less they can expand against each other, unless they are allowed to do so by a force that gives them freedom to expand.
A pump attached to a chamber will turn equilibrium of pressure externally and internally into added pressure externally due to the pump pushing back the atmosphere to allow the expansion of molecules to take their place in that external atmosphere. And this amount adds extra pressure onto the chamber that is also weakened by the expansion of molecules inside.

A simple analogy is to imagine a container full of sponge balls that is sat in the middle of another massive container of sponge balls.
Ok, the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber again st the compression of sponge balls out of that container.
From this point on if you picture the sponge ball, you can see that there is no free space. Just sponge balls compressed into each other.

Add energy like a pump and push sponge balls away from the container, it compresses them more externally but leaves the sponge balls inside the container to decompress a little, allowing some to take their place externally, meaning there are less sponge balls inside the container but more added externally from that container to now take their place as added external pressure against it, assuming we seal the exit from this point.

This is your so called vacuum but as you can see - or imagine - it's nothing of the sort and is only a lower internal pressure but still full of sponge balls that are still all attached, only less compressed.

This is why you can never evacuate a chamber - ever.
You could only evacuate enough (assuming the strongest container, ever and the strongest every pump) until all of the molecules inside cease to vibrate under pressure or change of pressure. This is when you would have no more expansion of molecules onto molecules to create anymore push out of the container.


I think a few will get this. Maybe you will.

In your analogy, you cannot keep removing air from a chamber because of the lack of interior pressure will cause the chamber to rupture? You didn't clearly explain what will happen if you keep trying to remove "sponge balls" from the vacuum chamber.

Why would you seal the exit? Wouldn't you want exterior pressure to be normalized? It's not like we're trying to rupture the chamber here.
Take your time and read what I said.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 12:33:52 AM
The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?
The external atmosphere is pushed away which allows the atmosphere inside the chamber to expand into the lower pressure created by that pump push.
All molecules are under pressure and under different friction/agitation dependent on energy applied. (we won't go into this part because it will just get confusing).

Basically molecules expand against each other and the more there is, the less they can expand against each other, unless they are allowed to do so by a force that gives them freedom to expand.
A pump attached to a chamber will turn equilibrium of pressure externally and internally into added pressure externally due to the pump pushing back the atmosphere to allow the expansion of molecules to take their place in that external atmosphere. And this amount adds extra pressure onto the chamber that is also weakened by the expansion of molecules inside.

A simple analogy is to imagine a container full of sponge balls that is sat in the middle of another massive container of sponge balls.
Ok, the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber again st the compression of sponge balls out of that container.
From this point on if you picture the sponge ball, you can see that there is no free space. Just sponge balls compressed into each other.

Add energy like a pump and push sponge balls away from the container, it compresses them more externally but leaves the sponge balls inside the container to decompress a little, allowing some to take their place externally, meaning there are less sponge balls inside the container but more added externally from that container to now take their place as added external pressure against it, assuming we seal the exit from this point.

This is your so called vacuum but as you can see - or imagine - it's nothing of the sort and is only a lower internal pressure but still full of sponge balls that are still all attached, only less compressed.

This is why you can never evacuate a chamber - ever.
You could only evacuate enough (assuming the strongest container, ever and the strongest every pump) until all of the molecules inside cease to vibrate under pressure or change of pressure. This is when you would have no more expansion of molecules onto molecules to create anymore push out of the container.


I think a few will get this. Maybe you will.

Well this is a lot to consider.  In the mean time what exactly are these molecules made of.  In Chemistry we learn about the basic structure of electronics and how these bind together to form molecules.  Under this system there's a huge amount of empty space between any two molecules.  Also, as we understand it, a molecule cannot be shrunk or stretched.  Chemistry doesn't allow it.  You would just end up destroying the molecule.

One more question, off topic really.  Where are you from? I'm guessing English is your second language?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 12:39:32 AM
Well this is a lot to consider.  In the mean time what exactly are these molecules made of.  In Chemistry we learn about the basic structure of electronics and how these bind together to form molecules.  Under this system there's a huge amount of empty space between any two molecules.  Also, as we understand it, a molecule cannot be shrunk or stretched.  Chemistry doesn't allow it.  You would just end up destroying the molecule.

One more question, off topic really.  Where are you from? I'm guessing English is your second language?
To go down the chemistry route is to veer off course from allowing people to get a grasp on what's being talked about in the simplest manner possible. Let's try and keep it that way before there's any real need to go too deep.

As for English being my second language. Yes it is.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: disputeone on August 04, 2016, 12:59:24 AM
Would measuring the difference between the force required to push and lift an object work?

Submarines have pressure pushing against their entire hull, not just the top.  At least that is what we are told.  Maybe an experiment measuring the pressure exerted on an object could shed some light on the matter.  If it is equal then someone can refer to the first experiment I suggested.

How about releasing a fluid in a chamber and seeing what happens?  It should eventually be denser towards the bottom or an explanation is needed to explain why the atmosphere gets denser at lower altitudes.

I will agree with those that said this is the most constructive thread I have seen.
That is because the idiot trolls haven't started their destructive bs.

Let's keep this attitude up then, this thread is the way this entire site should function in my humble opinion.

Anyone who doesn't want their hypothesis' tested with the scientific method has no interest in the truth.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 04, 2016, 01:10:18 AM
Scepti, so what really happens in the syringe which is sealed at hose is that the molecules are expanded. So are the atoms? Or just the distances between atoms? Here is something that came into mind:
0) Is it theoretically possible to expand a molecule to a size of a ... car?
1) If this is what happens to molecules on Earth, what would they look like in space? Maybe then all those celestial bodies are just molecules that are expanded to that great size because of lack of air
2) Also, why would molecules expand? There is no air "inside" of them so they could be 'inflated'.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 01:13:25 AM
You said "the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber"

This means that without air molecules supporting it, the chamber would collapse?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 01:15:38 AM

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

Explain this please? I am having a hard time understanding FET
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 01:33:13 AM
Scepti, so what really happens in the syringe which is sealed at hose is that the molecules are expanded. So are the atoms? Or just the distances between atoms? Here is something that came into mind:
0) Is it theoretically possible to expand a molecule to a size of a ... car?
No. A molecule or atom or whatever you want to know it as will only expand under vibration. Basically under compression and expansion by energy applied.
Once that vibration gets less frequent due to less energy causing that agitation due to expansion, then the molecules start to go dormant. basically they freeze to our perception.

1) If this is what happens to molecules on Earth, what would they look like in space?
There are none in space because space does not exist. However, this is another story and will just complicate matters.

Maybe then all those celestial bodies are just molecules that are expanded to that great size because of lack of air
As above.

2) Also, why would molecules expand? There is no air "inside" of them so they could be 'inflated'.
The key is to under stand that molecules are under compression. Think of a Jack in the box. We all know it's a Jack in the box but is that it's natural state?
What is a natural state to us?
Is it Jack being released from the box so his spring expands?
What happens to Jack when he's allowed to come out of that box? Is it game over?

Jack's became dormant. He offers no more force for any particular reason.
Use your energy to squash Jack back into that box. He's just a bundle of potential energy if he stays there.

This sounds childish but there's logic in there.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 04, 2016, 01:37:46 AM
A brick weighs the same whatever the atmospheric pressure.  Air pressure is not directional.

A brick weighs the same whatever way it is placed on a scale.  Clearly the weight is not due to any downwards pressure to the top surface from air or anything else above it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 01:52:00 AM
You said "the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber"

This means that without air molecules supporting it, the chamber would collapse?
It's self explanatory. No internal support by evacuation of matter means more external pressure and potential collapse unless a chamber is build strong enough to cater for the strength of the pump allowing expansion of internal matter to external..

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 01:56:41 AM

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

Explain this please? I am having a hard time understanding FET
It's all explained in this topic. Read it through.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 04, 2016, 03:07:17 AM
BTW, I have gallium if this can help us (for example submerging more heavy metals). However it is not transparent, so you can't see a thing in there...
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 03:20:59 AM
A brick weighs the same whatever the atmospheric pressure.  Air pressure is not directional.

A brick weighs the same whatever way it is placed on a scale.  Clearly the weight is not due to any downwards pressure to the top surface from air or anything else above it.
Just leave. That's been explained and the fact you like an argument doesn't mean you get to keep repeating it. There's an actually interesting discussion going on in this thread, which is rare on this site, and you butting in with points you've literally already had addressed is just a pain. It's not smart, it's not clever, it's just irritating.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805796#msg1805796
It's down to volume of air displaced rather than surface area: all the latter decides is how distributed the force is, the former decides on the magnitude of said force.
Get a new argument for once.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 04, 2016, 03:32:07 AM
A brick weighs the same whatever the atmospheric pressure.  Air pressure is not directional.

A brick weighs the same whatever way it is placed on a scale.  Clearly the weight is not due to any downwards pressure to the top surface from air or anything else above it.
Just leave. That's been explained and the fact you like an argument doesn't mean you get to keep repeating it. There's an actually interesting discussion going on in this thread, which is rare on this site, and you butting in with points you've literally already had addressed is just a pain. It's not smart, it's not clever, it's just irritating.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805796#msg1805796
It's down to volume of air displaced rather than surface area: all the latter decides is how distributed the force is, the former decides on the magnitude of said force.
Get a new argument for once.
It was not answered.

What does 'upwards stacked air' mean?  What measured difference in pressure is there from the bottom to the top of an object to influence its weight.

You are claiming density is related to displaced air in a substance.  There is more air in copper than lead?

This does explain how a scale measures the weight of an object.  Where is the downward force?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 03:43:59 AM
It was not answered.

What does 'upwards stacked air' mean?  What measured difference in pressure is there from the bottom to the top of an object to influence its weight.

You are claiming density is related to displaced air in a substance.  There is more air in copper than lead?

This does explain how a scale measures the weight of an object.  Where is the downward force?
I'm not claiming it, I'm recounting the model. Even if you don't have the slightest idea what upwards stacked air is, that's not the part that answers your question. Displacement is what matters under this model, so even if you don't understand that you should at least be able to shut up about surface area given that it's not the key factor. And yes, as is pointed out in literally the first few posts of this thread, the model does claim that lighter objects are more porous and so can contain air, like a sponge.
Just think of it in terms of inverse buoyancy. In a pool, water's all around you, but you only get pushed in one direction: up, and by this model that's because that's the direction from which you displaced the water.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 04:25:31 AM
Query for Scepti:

Ok, so I was thinking about the balloon situation as a means of possibly getting numbers, as many people ask for, for a concrete value of the pressure exerted. However, there's one detail I can't get my head around.
If we take an uninflated balloon, and weigh it, it weighs slightly less than an inflated and tied off balloon. Initially I put that down to it displacing more air, but the more I thought about it that wouldn't seem to be the case, as volume of the material of the balloon is constant, and given how porous objects behave, it doesn't seem like it should be the case that the air within the balloon is counted as displaced. So, there are two cases:
If the air within the balloon isn't counted as displaced, which feels right to me, then why would the weight measured of a balloon increase when inflated? The amount of displaced air doesn't alter.
Second case: if, instead, the air within the balloon counts as displaced, we'd need the inside of the balloon to essentially be an isolated system, separate from the stack outside it, in which case shouldn't there be an internal denpressure system? (eg: if you slide something like a paperclip inside and inflate, and turn the balloon around, the paperclip should stay pressed to one side independent of the external pressure).

First case is what feels like should be the case, from my understanding of denpressure, but I can't reconcile it with the fact an inflated balloon, despite displacing an equal amount of air, weighs more.
It might be that I've forgotten to take something into account, in which case please could you let me know?

Edit: only solution I can see is that the scale's measuring the air pressure inside the balloon, which adds a bit, but as it ought to do so to all sides there might be a simple experiment we can do on this, if this is indeed the explanation.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 04, 2016, 05:09:02 AM
It was not answered.

What does 'upwards stacked air' mean?  What measured difference in pressure is there from the bottom to the top of an object to influence its weight.

You are claiming density is related to displaced air in a substance.  There is more air in copper than lead?

This does explain how a scale measures the weight of an object.  Where is the downward force?
I'm not claiming it, I'm recounting the model. Even if you don't have the slightest idea what upwards stacked air is, that's not the part that answers your question. Displacement is what matters under this model, so even if you don't understand that you should at least be able to shut up about surface area given that it's not the key factor. And yes, as is pointed out in literally the first few posts of this thread, the model does claim that lighter objects are more porous and so can contain air, like a sponge.
Just think of it in terms of inverse buoyancy. In a pool, water's all around you, but you only get pushed in one direction: up, and by this model that's because that's the direction from which you displaced the water.
Please provide your definition of displacement so we all understand.

So surface area is not the key factor, but is relevant?  How?

'Up because that's the direction you displaced the water'  Seriously?  If I move along the bottom of the pool for 20m I still go straight up.

Still no proof of lead and copper falling at different speeds.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 04, 2016, 05:14:58 AM
So I did the quick experiment with the syringe. It failed. I mean the metal spring stayed at constant length with normal pressure and much lower (to my understanding if I expand the chamber by factor of 3 I get one third of an atmosphere). I will make a video when I'll find a bigger container for water since the syringe I bought especially for this experiment is to big to hold in a big kitchen bowl. But here how it looks like:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZXrs_0t0j9Hia0ERjrw6CL-0ARMeL_-iLMVvF4eDzX3czAJ63JNe3WbvN_HeZLe7NjfOoJyP8_6N4utSFNNUzGXChJcLVw49Dtn1Bske1bSPlvTx3njVavEteqjFoWIXxhHTu79WHemkoPU10TB8ghYtKkWlQonTxmQqo-icpe2DqaEmug-ZKTv45bfw9P-1Qy52SFWliaNglUrE6ccqRCnKojEwoqJVqbkLKPJ6FckhPOUyJfAOCEhwVKyg6OwvuO9xxSs7exlyDkB8svTrfGI8rFgmvyR32moxRqXsaz-TKhtvvnj_HXfktUhhz9iSzEk9jlJ6N84bCnK3KIusDtKXmjKCnvVkEuRpazu0zEz0iBrFGQdXaettVtg70MV0gmnhC17fbRQcd8Dy_rnw_zvwj4zvGRb4jOcYSxxAnUEOEYcMABCQ5uD7OiCPAiRR9wpvdeP8kKLuqvqSuJ07qANKQrSXrKsBZ0llTCMgipujTqcATSk-sgUejkWKA0ClOhEFETWEJXZh7HtQMcDIIGPEWXOAXdC2MCw5u-d5c2HmVvlDRqT_FOk60kj26BOwkB_PaXIHGtEcKR69V472bm8AdI-bY5w=w670-h894-no)

Sorry for crappy pic. I'll do a video with my Sony Alpha and outside...
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 04, 2016, 05:15:11 AM
Query for Scepti:

Ok, so I was thinking about the balloon situation as a means of possibly getting numbers, as many people ask for, for a concrete value of the pressure exerted. However, there's one detail I can't get my head around.
If we take an uninflated balloon, and weigh it, it weighs slightly less than an inflated and tied off balloon. Initially I put that down to it displacing more air, but the more I thought about it that wouldn't seem to be the case, as volume of the material of the balloon is constant, and given how porous objects behave, it doesn't seem like it should be the case that the air within the balloon is counted as displaced. So, there are two cases:
If the air within the balloon isn't counted as displaced, which feels right to me, then why would the weight measured of a balloon increase when inflated? The amount of displaced air doesn't alter.
Second case: if, instead, the air within the balloon counts as displaced, we'd need the inside of the balloon to essentially be an isolated system, separate from the stack outside it, in which case shouldn't there be an internal denpressure system? (eg: if you slide something like a paperclip inside and inflate, and turn the balloon around, the paperclip should stay pressed to one side independent of the external pressure).

First case is what feels like should be the case, from my understanding of denpressure, but I can't reconcile it with the fact an inflated balloon, despite displacing an equal amount of air, weighs more.
It might be that I've forgotten to take something into account, in which case please could you let me know?

Edit: only solution I can see is that the scale's measuring the air pressure inside the balloon, which adds a bit, but as it ought to do so to all sides there might be a simple experiment we can do on this, if this is indeed the explanation.

Hmm..  it might depend on how you went about inflating the balloon,   if you blew it up normally then the exhaled air will be richer in CO2 and water vapour than the surrounding air.   Which would make it weigh heavier than when un-inflated. 

Carry on,   watching with interest to see which way this thread goes.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 04, 2016, 05:32:45 AM
Query for Scepti:

Ok, so I was thinking about the balloon situation as a means of possibly getting numbers, as many people ask for, for a concrete value of the pressure exerted. However, there's one detail I can't get my head around.
If we take an uninflated balloon, and weigh it, it weighs slightly less than an inflated and tied off balloon. Initially I put that down to it displacing more air, but the more I thought about it that wouldn't seem to be the case, as volume of the material of the balloon is constant, and given how porous objects behave, it doesn't seem like it should be the case that the air within the balloon is counted as displaced. So, there are two cases:
If the air within the balloon isn't counted as displaced, which feels right to me, then why would the weight measured of a balloon increase when inflated? The amount of displaced air doesn't alter.
Second case: if, instead, the air within the balloon counts as displaced, we'd need the inside of the balloon to essentially be an isolated system, separate from the stack outside it, in which case shouldn't there be an internal denpressure system? (eg: if you slide something like a paperclip inside and inflate, and turn the balloon around, the paperclip should stay pressed to one side independent of the external pressure).

First case is what feels like should be the case, from my understanding of denpressure, but I can't reconcile it with the fact an inflated balloon, despite displacing an equal amount of air, weighs more.
It might be that I've forgotten to take something into account, in which case please could you let me know?

Edit: only solution I can see is that the scale's measuring the air pressure inside the balloon, which adds a bit, but as it ought to do so to all sides there might be a simple experiment we can do on this, if this is indeed the explanation.
Next week I'll to go the lab and will measure sponge + metal thing on it (The claim that when the sponge compressed under the pressure of metal thing will weigh less)

But the balloon test is not illustrative. It will really weigh more (a tiny bit). Why?
0) The air in the balloon is compressed (balloon causes pressure) => more dense air
1) You might inflate it with your mouth, so the air you inflate the balloon with is rich in CO2 and water, which both are heavier than normal air.
 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 05:48:45 AM
Next week I'll to go the lab and will measure sponge + metal thing on it (The claim that when the sponge compressed under the pressure of metal thing will weigh less)
That example might not be easily measurable, if you're testing my claim, don't worry about it. You'd need a very large sponge and very large bit of metal for the air forced out to have any meaningful impact under the RE model. Might be interesting though, if we do see a significant drop, because that'd be in favour of denpressure. Not much proof either way, without raw numbers.
Think the idea's that the sponge with metal on top weighs less than the sponge and metal side by side, though I'm not sure if it's an 'approved' experiment just yet. Would make sense though, as far as removing porous-ness (?) goes.

Quote
But the balloon test is not illustrative. It will really weigh more (a tiny bit). Why?
0) The air in the balloon is compressed (balloon causes pressure) => more dense air
1) You might inflate it with your mouth, so the air you inflate the balloon with is rich in CO2 and water, which both are heavier than normal air.
Inflating with mouth would be one issue, but if you remove that variable then the key issue would be the fact there's more pressure on the inside. If that's the case, though, it ought to be detected from all directions rather than just underneath, so if you place a scale on top of the balloon (upside down of course), under typical gravity I believe it'd only detect the weight of said scale (which we can figure out independently), while if pressure is to blame it ought to detect the weight plus the added pressure (which ought to be the same as the difference in weight between the inflated and deflated balloon, with the scale underneath). Might be some issues with balancing the scale on top, but otherwise...
Like I said, this variation in pressure seems to be the best answer, but if it's the case we can detect it.
Though, of course, need to make sure I'm understanding the model, hence awaiting Scepti's input.

Edit: plus, we ought to be able to correct for the errors in inflating by mouth. It's possible to just hold air in your mouth rather than lungs, so the composition wouldn't alter, and if you deflate the balloon (pointing the nozzle at the scales) and weigh it again after, you'd be able to see the weight of the moisture.

Please provide your definition of displacement so we all understand.
So surface area is not the key factor, but is relevant?  How?
'Up because that's the direction you displaced the water'  Seriously?  If I move along the bottom of the pool for 20m I still go straight up.
Why do you bother with threads if you're not interested in answers? Everyone knows what displacement means, I've explained surface area multiple times so far (it gives the area over which the force is distributed), and you enter a swimming pool from above invariably. Moving around when fully submerged doesn't displace more water it displaces exactly the same amount.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 06:35:19 AM
Query for Scepti:

Ok, so I was thinking about the balloon situation as a means of possibly getting numbers, as many people ask for, for a concrete value of the pressure exerted. However, there's one detail I can't get my head around.
If we take an uninflated balloon, and weigh it, it weighs slightly less than an inflated and tied off balloon. Initially I put that down to it displacing more air, but the more I thought about it that wouldn't seem to be the case, as volume of the material of the balloon is constant, and given how porous objects behave, it doesn't seem like it should be the case that the air within the balloon is counted as displaced. So, there are two cases:
If the air within the balloon isn't counted as displaced, which feels right to me, then why would the weight measured of a balloon increase when inflated? The amount of displaced air doesn't alter.
Ok, let's see if I can make a fist of explaining this.
Analogy time.
Imagine you have a container of various grains of slightly different densities. You know, sand, sugar, salt,baking powder, etc.
Ok, now as you know, the more of something there is, the more densely packed it will be due to more smaller particles.
Think of mud against sand as an instance.
I know you get this.

Anyway the container is a substitute analogy for atmosphere.
Now we place a ping pong ball at the bottom as a balloon analogy. Now, if you leave it at that, we will simply see a ping pong ball that is covered by various layers of grain (atmosphere) and yet it stays put. Start to tap the container and you see the ping pong ball start to rise. It is being pushed up because the denser particles are surrounding it but will find their place back at the bottom and in doing so will push up the ping pong ball by squeezing, except the ball doesn't crush, it merely resists the squeeze by sheer expansion inside of it -  and rises.


Hopefully this analogy might be enough to trigger your thoughts. If not, I'll try again.

Second case: if, instead, the air within the balloon counts as displaced, we'd need the inside of the balloon to essentially be an isolated system, separate from the stack outside it, in which case shouldn't there be an internal denpressure system? (eg: if you slide something like a paperclip inside and inflate, and turn the balloon around, the paperclip should stay pressed to one side independent of the external pressure).

Actually there is another force acting on the paper clip but it's a near equal force inside and that force will only change upon acceleration against an outside force, such as the obvious atmosphere working against that acceleration.
This requires a more in depth but still simplistic explanation which I'll provide if you wish, because I know you're taking notice.

First case is what feels like should be the case, from my understanding of denpressure, but I can't reconcile it with the fact an inflated balloon, despite displacing an equal amount of air, weighs more.
It might be that I've forgotten to take something into account, in which case please could you let me know?
Basically think of this.
When a balloon is deflated it's mass lies on a scale plate as simply a near airless flat rubber that displaces a tiny amount of atmosphere as we know.
Add atmosphere to that balloon and you make that balloon rise into the atmosphere by placing that external atmosphere into the internal balloon and now have a standing balloon being gripped around by external atmosphere.
This would make it  ever so slightly less in weight, because a near buoyancy has been sort of made.

Edit: only solution I can see is that the scale's measuring the air pressure inside the balloon, which adds a bit, but as it ought to do so to all sides there might be a simple experiment we can do on this, if this is indeed the explanation.
The air pressure put into the balloon is only the air pressure taken externally.

If I'm not being too clear then just say and I can try and use another thought on it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 07:19:51 AM
Basically think of this.
When a balloon is deflated it's mass lies on a scale plate as simply a near airless flat rubber that displaces a tiny amount of atmosphere as we know.
Add atmosphere to that balloon and you make that balloon rise into the atmosphere by placing that external atmosphere into the internal balloon and now have a standing balloon being gripped around by external atmosphere.
This would make it  ever so slightly less in weight, because a near buoyancy has been sort of made.
I think I understand your initial analogy in light of this statement, it would make sense for an object that gains volume without gaining density to gain buoyancy of sorts.
My issue is that this isn't what we observe: if you fill a balloon with regular air (rather than, say, helium) we can measure a gain in weight, not a reduction. I distinctly recall seeing this done, and it'd be an easy thing to replicate if you want to check. In fact, I just did check before sending this post (albeit unscientifically, with kitchen scales and plastic gloves) and there was a gain in weight after inflation.

Quote
The air pressure put into the balloon is only the air pressure taken externally.

If I'm not being too clear then just say and I can try and use another thought on it.
I'm not completely sure what this bit means; does it just mean that the air pressure is transferred from the outside, rather than created or increased on the inside? If so, I think I've got it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 07:42:13 AM
I think I understand your initial analogy in light of this statement, it would make sense for an object that gains volume without gaining density to gain buoyancy of sorts.
My issue is that this isn't what we observe: if you fill a balloon with regular air (rather than, say, helium) we can measure a gain in weight, not a reduction. I distinctly recall seeing this done, and it'd be an easy thing to replicate if you want to check. In fact, I just did check before sending this post (albeit unscientifically, with kitchen scales and plastic gloves) and there was a gain in weight after inflation.
Well that's news to me because I've done it and there was no change. I think the scales cannot record a buoyancy. Anyway it's one to ponder I suppose.

Quote
The air pressure put into the balloon is only the air pressure taken externally.

If I'm not being too clear then just say and I can try and use another thought on it
.

I'm not completely sure what this bit means; does it just mean that the air pressure is transferred from the outside, rather than created or increased on the inside? If so, I think I've got it.
Basically, yes.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 07:48:42 AM
Well that's news to me because I've done it and there was no change. I think the scales cannot record a buoyancy. Anyway it's one to ponder I suppose.
Might be worth adding this as a third experiment? If nothing else it'd demonstrate a difference between the models, if we see an upwards or downwards shift.
Might just be something that requires a degree of sensitivity. I'll be the first to admit my set-up wasn't great, kitchen scales don't offer too much detail, but I do recall seeing this done. Big enough balloon, sensitive scales... Certainly though, we shouldn't observe an increase in weight under the denpressure model.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 08:09:19 AM
You said "the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber"

This means that without air molecules supporting it, the chamber would collapse?
It's self explanatory. No internal support by evacuation of matter means more external pressure and potential collapse unless a chamber is build strong enough to cater for the strength of the pump allowing expansion of internal matter to external..

OK so if a chamber is constructed with sufficient support and strength, could you theoretically remove ALL gas from a chamber without collapse?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 08:26:51 AM
Well that's news to me because I've done it and there was no change. I think the scales cannot record a buoyancy. Anyway it's one to ponder I suppose.
Might be worth adding this as a third experiment? If nothing else it'd demonstrate a difference between the models, if we see an upwards or downwards shift.
Might just be something that requires a degree of sensitivity. I'll be the first to admit my set-up wasn't great, kitchen scales don't offer too much detail, but I do recall seeing this done. Big enough balloon, sensitive scales... Certainly though, we shouldn't observe an increase in weight under the denpressure model.
I agree. I think we should use any and all available potential experiments that can be mustered and see where we lie with it all as and when they get done.
With the right equipment, I think this could be certainly marked down as of massive potential to actually changing the science behind what we've all been brought up on.
Ok the changing science bit might be too far. I doubt the peers of dogma would go anywhere near it.
At least it can be used for our own inquisitive minds to keep fine tuning and fine tuning until it either falls flat or shows huge gains.

My money is on overall huge gains because I'm so sure of it in my mind. However, that's just  my mind.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2016, 08:33:33 AM
I look forward to your Nobel Prize.


Lol
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 08:45:32 AM
You said "the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber"

This means that without air molecules supporting it, the chamber would collapse?
It's self explanatory. No internal support by evacuation of matter means more external pressure and potential collapse unless a chamber is build strong enough to cater for the strength of the pump allowing expansion of internal matter to external..

OK so if a chamber is constructed with sufficient support and strength, could you theoretically remove ALL gas from a chamber without collapse?
No and I'll explain why with an analogy, so take it as that and try to understand what I'm getting at if you can. I know it's easy for me to explain and harder for those who are trying to grasp what I'm saying but try your best.

Ok, analogy. (Bearing in mind you've took notice of my previous posts).

Imagine a container full of Jack in the boxes. They are all inside closed lids. Basically compressed.
Outside of that container are lots of other Jack in the boxes pushing against the lid of the one's in the container.
The lid is closed. In between the two sets of Jack in the boxes, superman is stood and superman wants to allow the Jack in the boxes that are contained - to release.

Superman starts to push the external jack in the boxes away from the container and in doing so he's under severe pressure of them pushing back due to him exerting his energy in compressing them a little more.

As he does this, the Jack in the boxes in the container start to spring open into the void that superman has left in holding the external one's back.
As the first Jack in the box starts to open, it's followed by the next and the next that are all pushing into each other as they also start to spring open.
They will continue to do this until superman cannot hold the external one's back or until the external one's compress the container past it's strength.

However...and this is the key issue you want addressing. IF super man was able to keep pushing external pressure away and the container stayed strong, then it comes down to the Jack in the boxes that are left inside that container to push against each other until they full expand their springs.
The issue is, when they do expand their springs, they have nothing left to push against each other. They become dormant. Useless as anything other than a statue, or to make it simpler, they freeze.

Superman plays the evacuation pump in this story.
Ok, there's kid like version which is hopefully beneficial to many who are trying to grasp this stuff. No offence to you with me using this.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 08:52:27 AM

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

Explain this please? I am having a hard time understanding FET
It's all explained in this topic. Read it through.

I have read every single post in this thread, nobody has yet mentioned a firmament.

The problem I have with FE is it is SUPPOSED to be based upon empirical evidence, or evidence one can see and measure with one's own senses. Have you ever seen a firmament? How do you know it exists?

The same thing can be said about air molecules. Have you seen gas molecules expand in a low pressure system? Don't pretend like you have an electron microscope, so face facts. You have never measured molecules expanding in low pressure, so how can you possibly make such a claim?

You also have not explained the fact that air pressure is constant on all sides (including the bottom) so where does the downward force come from?

What is keeping all the air compressed at sea level? Shouldn't the atmosphere press against the firmament at the same pressure?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 09:04:16 AM
You keep referencing a stack. You explain it like a human pyramid, where the bottom row receives the most pressure. This problem is in a FE model  there is no gravity pulling the people in the pyramid to the bottom. What gives air downward force in the den pressure model?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 09:04:55 AM
Ok, so, experiment pitch for consideration from OP, as it seems to have Scepti's stamp of approval.

Equipment
Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

Method
1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Predictions
Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 09:09:29 AM
I have read every single post in this thread, nobody has yet mentioned a firmament.
It all depends on what you deem as a firmament. I've seen many things mentioned on those lines b ut it depends on how you see it all.

The problem I have with FE is it is SUPPOSED to be based upon empirical evidence, or evidence one can see and measure with one's own senses.Have you ever seen a firmament? How do you know it exists?
It's a big Earth no matter which way people look at it or pretend to know it all. Empirical evidence is hard to come by for ALL scientific theories to do with a lot of the stuff we're expected to accept as the absolute truth with no real in your face physical proof. Admit this or don't but all it will do is create senseless arguments of tit for tat and it's not worth the energy.

The same thing can be said about ait molecules. Have you seen gas molecules expand in a low pressure system?
No. I simply use basic common sense and logic too deduce what's happening by physically seeing larger matter doing exactly that.


Don't pretend like you have an electronic microscope, so face facts. You have never measured molecules expanding in low pressure, so how can you possibly make such a claim?
Neither have you measured them to argue any point with me.
To see anything through a microscope means you have to negotiate atmosphere or gases of molecules or whatever you want to call them.
So how does anyone see molecules if they have to look through them to see?

You also have not explained the fact that air pressure is constant on all sides (including the bottom) so where does the downward force come from?
From the upward force emanating from the energy from the ground. It stacks.

What is keeping all the air compressed at sea level? Shouldn't the atmosphere press against the firmament at the same pressure?
Is the man at the top of the human pyramid under the same pressure as the man on the bottom?
See if this video helps.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 09:12:20 AM
Ok, so, experiment pitch for consideration from OP, as it seems to have Scepti's stamp of approval.

Equipment
Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

Method
1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Predictions
Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.
That seems fair enough.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 09:44:01 AM
It's a big Earth no matter which way people look at it or pretend to know it all. Empirical evidence is hard to come by for ALL scientific theories to do with a lot of the stuff we're expected to accept as the absolute truth with no real in your face physical proof. Admit this or don't but all it will do is create senseless arguments of tit for tat and it's not worth the energy.

I admit that many scientific theories lack empirical evidence. That is why we have a peer-review system in place. If somebody in the scientific community wishes to make a claim, they need to test it. Others need to be able to duplicate their procedure and also duplicate the findings. It is a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and it allows us to understand things that not all of us have the ability or resources to observe. If every school could afford an electron microscope, then you yourself could observe air molecules and the effect pressure has on them. Luckily for you, these experiments have already been done countless times. For some reason, you reject the scientific community. You deny the conclusions that thousands of smarter, better equipped and more experienced scientists have come to. In place of all their effort, you would have me believe in your thought experiments that have no testing to prove them. Admit that logically, I should assume that you have no idea what you are talking about

No. I simply use basic common sense and logic too deduce what's happening by physically seeing larger matter doing exactly that.

Like I said above, before you make such claims you need to actually test them in a way that we all can test. You can't just come up with a model in your mind and expect the world to be that way.

Neither have you measured them to argue any point with me.
To see anything through a microscope means you have to negotiate atmosphere or gases of molecules or whatever you want to call them.
So how does anyone see molecules if they have to look through them to see?

I don't have to personally look into an electron microscope. Thousands of others have already done it. They ALL came to the same conclusion. Just because you don't know how an electron microscope works doesn't mean I have to personally perform an experiment for you. Let's remember here that YOU are the one at odds with scientific research. If you want to tell me something you better have some sort of research to back it up besides "it makes sense in my brain so it must be true"

From the upward force emanating from the energy from the ground. It stacks.

Sorry according to your model, the stack goes all the way up to the top of the firmament? Then why is there more downward pressure than upward? Shouldn't it be equalized in this model?

Is the man at the top of the human pyramid under the same pressure as the man on the bottom?
See if this video helps.

If there was a ceiling above that man, then there should be. According to the FE model, the atmosphere goes all the way to the firmament. Therefore, upward pressure should equal downward pressure. Another problem with using this video as an analogy is the fact that humans are solid, and therefore behave differently than gasses would. Gasses expand to fill any container, maintaining equal pressure on all sides. That is, of course, another force is acting upon said gasses. In an RE model, gravity accounts for this downward force. The FE model does not account for this downward force.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Charming Anarchist on August 04, 2016, 09:49:02 AM
I admit that many scientific theories lack empirical evidence. That is why we have a peer-review system in place.
Who is we?? 
YOU have a peer review system in place to shout down and bully honest people. 

Peer review is bullying for stupid people.  Only stupid dishonest people appeal to argumentatum populatum


If there was a ceiling above that man, then there should be. According to the FE model, the atmosphere goes all the way to the firmament.
Stop lying. 
The FE "model" is simple:  The earth is flat. 

Everything else (the firmament, air pressure, blah blah blah) is outside the FE model. 
Why are you here discussing denpressure? and not trolling in some other physics forum?? 

What other field of physics disputes den pressure???? 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 09:55:31 AM
I admit that many scientific theories lack empirical evidence. That is why we have a peer-review system in place.
Who is we?? 
YOU have a peer review system in place to shout down and bully honest people. 

Peer review is bullying for stupid people.  Only stupid dishonest people appeal to argumentatum populatum


If there was a ceiling above that man, then there should be. According to the FE model, the atmosphere goes all the way to the firmament.
Stop lying. 
The FE "model" is simple:  The earth is flat. 

Everything else (the firmament, air pressure, blah blah blah) is outside the FE model. 
Why are you here discussing denpressure? and not trolling in some other physics forum?? 

What other field of physics disputes den pressure????

Gentlemen, if you wish to attack each other over this there is a thread for that: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.0

On this thread let us argue in the form of experiments.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 04, 2016, 10:01:13 AM
Ok, so, experiment pitch for consideration from OP, as it seems to have Scepti's stamp of approval.

Equipment
Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

Method
1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Predictions
Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.
That seems fair enough.
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 10:06:28 AM
Who is we?? 

"We" being the people who exist in the realm of cooperation and reason. The peer review system is based upon testable facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Scientists can be bullies, but by critiquing each other's methods we get closer and closer to actual truth. If you have no data to back your claims (like FE theorists) you can expect to be laughed out of the room, and rightfully so.


Stop lying. 
The FE "model" is simple:  The earth is flat. 

Everything else (the firmament, air pressure, blah blah blah) is outside the FE model. 
Why are you here discussing denpressure? and not trolling in some other physics forum?? 

What other field of physics disputes den pressure????

The firmament is a pivotal part of the den pressure theory, don't pretend otherwise.

Also thanks for addressing NONE of the points I was making. Instead you call me a bully (for presenting nothing but facts in a cordial manner) and you tell me to take my truths elsewhere. Do you honestly have ZERO rebuttal to any of the claims I have made about den pressure? If not, I suggest you leave this discussion. At least Scepti addresses my points. At least I respect him for thinking critically and trying to come up with his own answers. You're no better than a squabbling child with a broken toy.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 10:07:09 AM
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 10:18:46 AM
Gentlemen, if you wish to attack each other over this there is a thread for that: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.0

On this thread let us argue in the form of experiments.

I made a response to that thread almost 24 hours ago and nobody has challenged it yet. I came here because I want to offer my views on the denpressure theory and actually have my views addressed.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 04, 2016, 10:22:19 AM
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.014 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 10:27:58 AM
1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  estimate 810mm  so air inside is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 km/m3

So if the inflated baloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.024 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.024*1300 - 0.024*1225 = 31.2 - 29.4 = approximately 1.8 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.
Yep, does sound more realistic, I just wasn't increasing the pressure as Inquisitive, as per usual, was asking for things he could easily look up. Litre of air seemed irrelevant to the balloon case.

Look forward to hearing the results, and glad you have an air compressor. That ought to remove a lot of the potential for skewed data.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 10:30:21 AM
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.024 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation

I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 10:31:40 AM

Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.
[/quote]

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.014 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation
[/quote]

Godspeed, friend. I agree with your methods and the conclusions you draw. Long live the scientific method!!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 10:39:18 AM
I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.
Likely need a fair big scale, too. Balloon's probably more practical.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 04, 2016, 10:43:32 AM
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.024 0.014 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation

I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.

These are precision laboratory scales, with a resolution of 0.001 grams, and a maximum of 200 grams,   the aircompressor weighs a few hundred kg,  sorry.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 10:46:03 AM
I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.
Likely need a fair big scale, too. Balloon's probably more practical.

The average air compressor weighs about 50 pounds, should fit on a shipping scale without any trouble.  Trying to measure the weight difference in something the size of a balloon is a bit problematic for a couple reasons.  It's a low volume of air.  The shape of the container changes as you add air to it.  It's more vulnerable to any movements in the surrounding air affecting the measurements.

Using the air compressor itself as the balloon solves all of these problems.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: markjo on August 04, 2016, 10:52:18 AM
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.
That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.
You can move through water can't you?
All you're doing is moving through less dense water.
Liquid water molecules aren't connected.  In your terms, the water molecules are stacked on each other, but they are free to slide around.  That's why you can move through water, but can't move through objects where the molecules are connected (solid objects).
Slide around is a good thought  but the issue is still the same. All molecules expand and contract into each other and never create a true free space, just a bigger energetic compression by expansion.

A thought for you: Picture all the molecules as washing up bubbles. Take a close look at washing up bubbles and try and count how many different sizes you see.
The truth is they're uncountable because there's just too many different stages of expansion going on and that's only what you can see due to reflection of light off of them.

Imagine inside each bubble there are the same things going on with even smaller compressed or expanded molecules. And within them we go again and again and so on.
We simply do not have the eyes nor the tools to realistically go that far, although we will be told we do.
Anyway that's another argument.

Basically this is just what we know as the simplest forms of gas/liquids.

The more dense stuff is simply more compressed matter within matter within matter and so on and so on depending on where they sit in Earth or what energy was applied, which again is another argument and will deviate this one.
Are air molecules the only molecules that expand, or can liquid and solid molecules expand too?  Why doesn't a block of wood expand when put into a vacuum chamber if it has air molecules trapped inside it?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 10:53:56 AM
I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.
Likely need a fair big scale, too. Balloon's probably more practical.

The average air compressor weighs about 50 pounds, should fit on a shipping scale without any trouble.  Trying to measure the weight difference in something the size of a balloon is a bit problematic for a couple reasons.  It's a low volume of air.  The shape of the container changes as you add air to it.  It's more vulnerable to any movements in the surrounding air affecting the measurements.

Using the air compressor itself as the balloon solves all of these problems.

You could even weigh it on a normal bathroom scale used for human weight. Once fully compressed there should be enough air weight to make a difference. Another bonus is the constant surface area of the compressor.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 04, 2016, 10:58:15 AM
Rayzor,

Good I will retest your results in my lab too. Tomorrow we have shabbat and hence I'll be in the lab only on Sunday.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
You could even weigh it on a normal bathroom scale used for human weight. Once fully compressed there should be enough air weight to make a difference. Another bonus is the constant surface area of the compressor.
That's a disadvantage, really. if we're being fair, we ought to give denpressure a chance, and the denpressure model predicts that the larger surface area with no added mass (beyond air) would increase buoyancy and decrease weight. The better experiment's always one where evidence can be in favour or opposed to, rather than just opposed to. This way, as well, it'll be more striking whichever happens.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 11:04:16 AM
I admit that many scientific theories lack empirical evidence. That is why we have a peer-review system in place. If somebody in the scientific community wishes to make a claim, they need to test it. Others need to be able to duplicate their procedure and also duplicate the findings.
 It is a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and it allows us to understand things that not all of us have the ability or resources to observe.
Duplicating something is fine if it was done in the first place. Much of the scientific stuff of theory has no physical model to start with to duplicate.
In bold above: Not a truer set of words spoken. The very fact we don't have those resources ensures that we can be duped to hell with almost any theory so called scientists come up with.


 
If every school could afford an electron microscope, then you yourself could observe air molecules and the effect pressure has on them. Luckily for you, these experiments have already been done countless times. For some reason, you reject the scientific community.
No, I don't reject the scientific community. I reject bullshit artists and question theoretical scientists that push stuff onto us that they cannot prove themselves and in many cases do not know what they're even saying in any real sense.


You deny the conclusions that thousands of smarter, better equipped and more experienced scientists have come to.
I deny the conclusions of people who come up with ridiculous illogical crap, to me. That's my prerogative.


In place of all their effort, you would have me believe in your thought experiments that have no testing to prove them. Admit that logically, I should assume that you have no idea what you are talking about
You can believe anything you want to. You can spew anything you feel like spewing. You can follow the indoctrinated way or your peers.
You can take the word of anyone you've never encountered and any model you've never seen working.
That is your prerogative but it does not make anything you say to me - true.





Like I said above, before you make such claims you need to actually test them in a way that we all can test. You can't just come up with a model in your mind and expect the world to be that way.
That's what this topic is all about. I've also tested stuff. It doesn't matter whether you believe that or not. the issue for me is finding the truth. If your issue is also finding it, then you shouldn't even be fighting against anything alternate to what you were taught. You should be embracing the fact that you can actually try and test different avenues and see if any of them can cast doubt on the model that we've all been schooled into.




I don't have to personally look into an electron microscope. Thousands of others have already done it. They ALL came to the same conclusion.
Do you actually know all these people personally or are you merely reciting what's been parroted thousands of times?


Just because you don't know how an electron microscope works doesn't mean I have to personally perform an experiment for you.
You can do whatever you feel. You can go about your life with the stuff you were taught firmly adhered to your mind and reject every word I say. I do things to satisfy my inquisitive mind and as I do so, I hope to give people the opportunity to actually open their minds to at least have a serious think for themselves.


Let's remember here that YOU are the one at odds with scientific research. If you want to tell me something you better have some sort of research to back it up besides "it makes sense in my brain so it must be true"
If something makes sense to me in a simple and logical way against something that does not make any sense at all in any way I look at it, then I'm going to go down only one road.





Sorry according to your model, the stack goes all the way up to the top of the firmament? Then why is there more downward pressure than upward? Shouldn't it be equalized in this model?
There is more downward pressure on your because you are a bottom feeder on the land under the gaseous atmosphere.
Just like a crab is the bottom feeder of the liquid atmosphere it is under.






If there was a ceiling above that man, then there should be.
The man is the ceiling.


According to the FE model, the atmosphere goes all the way to the firmament. Therefore, upward pressure should equal downward pressure.

Only for any dense object placed within it and pushing against it.

Another problem with using this video as an analogy is the fact that humans are solid, and therefore behave differently than gasses would.
It was used as an analogy and no more than that. You're intelligent enough to distinguish that, I'm sure.


Gasses expand to fill any container, maintaining equal pressure on all sides.
At sea level, yes. To our human perception.


That is, of course, another force is acting upon said gasses.
In which every dense object is doing exactly that.


In an RE model, gravity accounts for this downward force.
And yet if you're honest you do not know what gravity is and neither do scientists.



The FE model does not account for this downward force.
My model does.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 11:11:46 AM
Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.
That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.
You can move through water can't you?
All you're doing is moving through less dense water.
Liquid water molecules aren't connected.  In your terms, the water molecules are stacked on each other, but they are free to slide around.  That's why you can move through water, but can't move through objects where the molecules are connected (solid objects).
Slide around is a good thought  but the issue is still the same. All molecules expand and contract into each other and never create a true free space, just a bigger energetic compression by expansion.

A thought for you: Picture all the molecules as washing up bubbles. Take a close look at washing up bubbles and try and count how many different sizes you see.
The truth is they're uncountable because there's just too many different stages of expansion going on and that's only what you can see due to reflection of light off of them.

Imagine inside each bubble there are the same things going on with even smaller compressed or expanded molecules. And within them we go again and again and so on.
We simply do not have the eyes nor the tools to realistically go that far, although we will be told we do.
Anyway that's another argument.

Basically this is just what we know as the simplest forms of gas/liquids.

The more dense stuff is simply more compressed matter within matter within matter and so on and so on depending on where they sit in Earth or what energy was applied, which again is another argument and will deviate this one.
Are air molecules the only molecules that expand, or can liquid and solid molecules expand too?  Why doesn't a block of wood expand when put into a vacuum chamber if it has air molecules trapped inside it?
Some wood probably would (pardon the pun) but some wood is actually very porous.
A denser wood would probably start to break down if a suitable strong and a strong chamber was used.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 11:43:18 AM
You could even weigh it on a normal bathroom scale used for human weight. Once fully compressed there should be enough air weight to make a difference. Another bonus is the constant surface area of the compressor.
That's a disadvantage, really. if we're being fair, we ought to give denpressure a chance, and the denpressure model predicts that the larger surface area with no added mass (beyond air) would increase buoyancy and decrease weight. The better experiment's always one where evidence can be in favour or opposed to, rather than just opposed to. This way, as well, it'll be more striking whichever happens.

I suppose you could run it both ways.  It's just that speaking from practical experience, measuring the weight change in something the size of a balloon is the kind of experiment that's very likely to get botched.  It takes some finesse to run it reliably.  You're also dealing with the change in the air pressure and the surface area which makes interpreting results a bit messier.

I would also disagree that a good experiment is designed to promote a theory.  What we're going for is falsification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability.  Which I realize seems counter intuitive but the scientific method works kind of like a jury verdict in that a defendant is never declared innocent, only not guilty.  It's a subtle but important difference which lies at the heart of epistemology.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 11:59:58 AM
]Duplicating something is fine if it was done in the first place. Much of the scientific stuff of theory has no physical model to start with to duplicate.
In bold above: Not a truer set of words spoken. The very fact we don't have those resources ensures that we can be duped to hell with almost any theory so called scientists come up with.

You act as though all these thousands of INDIVIDUALS from different countries, backgrounds, religious views, and political motives are all colluding in order to dupe us? This could be further from the truth. Scientists are vicious with each other. They critique each other to no end. I have no idea why you think the world is out to get you, but know that this is a sign of schizophrenia.

No, I don't reject the scientific community. I reject bullshit artists and question theoretical scientists that push stuff onto us that they cannot prove themselves and in many cases do not know what they're even saying in any real sense.

Don't you have any idea how hypocritical you sound? You have ZERO PROOF for any of your claims yet you keep shrieking and stomping and insisting that you are right and every other actual scientist on earth is wrong. You are no better than they are.

You can believe anything you want to. You can spew anything you feel like spewing. You can follow the indoctrinated way or your peers.
You can take the word of anyone you've never encountered and any model you've never seen working.
That is your prerogative but it does not make anything you say to me - true.

I choose to follow the most logical model available. A model that can actually explain the setting sun, satellites, eclipses, and actually has a working map.

That's what this topic is all about. I've also tested stuff. It doesn't matter whether you believe that or not. the issue for me is finding the truth. If your issue is also finding it, then you shouldn't even be fighting against anything alternate to what you were taught. You should be embracing the fact that you can actually try and test different avenues and see if any of them can cast doubt on the model that we've all been schooled into.

This is one of my favorite threads. I am excited FE believers are finally trying the scientific method to actually test their theories  (even though the balloon experiment has been conducted before). And when you measure for yourself the FACT that a balloon full of air both has more mass and weighs more than a deflated balloon, I hope you accept it.

Do you actually know all these people personally or are you merely reciting what's been parroted thousands of times?
Do you personally know anybody who has seen or measured anything like a firmament? Or are you merely reciting what dozens have parroted before?

You can do whatever you feel. You can go about your life with the stuff you were taught firmly adhered to your mind and reject every word I say. I do things to satisfy my inquisitive mind and as I do so, I hope to give people the opportunity to actually open their minds to at least have a serious think for themselves.

That's a great mindset. I hope you keep an open mind when you conduct this balloon experiment.


If something makes sense to me in a simple and logical way against something that does not make any sense at all in any way I look at it, then I'm going to go down only one road.

How does it make any logical sense to believe in a firmament when it goes against all logical thinking AND evidence, empirical or otherwise?



The man is the ceiling.

Wait, the man IS the ceiling? Let me get this straight. In this analogy, the people are representing air particles. So all the air on earth is kept under pressure by nothing but air?

What happens if you put a water balloon on a table? The water is kept under pressure by the balloon. But if you try to pop the balloon, the water will escape and drip over the edges of the table because nothing is keeping it in.


Only for any dense object placed within it and pushing against it.

Sorry the firmament isn't pushing against the atmosphere? Then where does all the pressure come from?

It was used as an analogy and no more than that. You're intelligent enough to distinguish that, I'm sure.

Obviously it is an analogy. I am simply telling you it is a poor one, as human pyramids do not accurately represent air particles moving within an enclosed space.

At sea level, yes. To our human perception.

This is constant at all levels of elevation. Not sure what you mean by the "to put human perception" bit. Can you name 1 thing that isn't based upon the human perception?


And yet if you're honest you do not know what gravity is and neither do scientists.
You're right. No scientist has yet discovered a particle or other source of gravitational energy. We can, however, measure it's effects with great accuracy. That's how we discovered Pluto in the first place. Scientists realized there must be another source of mass in our solar system to account for the shape of outer planet orbits. Using nothing but sheer calculations, scientists in Arizona were able to make visual confirmation of the planet decades ago. You can even visit your local observatory and see it for yourself, but your tinfoil hat is too large for you to enter the building. You even doubt Jupiter has moons, even though you can build your own telescope and see for yourself just like Galileo did thousands of years ago. For some reason, you refuse. I wonder why that is.


My model does.

No it doesnt. If you knew anything about fluids, you would know that absent any other force, they exert even pressure throughout the ENTIRE SYSTEM. In the FE model, there is no gravity, so what other force is pushing all this air toward the Earth's surface?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 12:04:42 PM
You could even weigh it on a normal bathroom scale used for human weight. Once fully compressed there should be enough air weight to make a difference. Another bonus is the constant surface area of the compressor.
That's a disadvantage, really. if we're being fair, we ought to give denpressure a chance, and the denpressure model predicts that the larger surface area with no added mass (beyond air) would increase buoyancy and decrease weight. The better experiment's always one where evidence can be in favour or opposed to, rather than just opposed to. This way, as well, it'll be more striking whichever happens.

That would be adding a second variable. The best experiments only study 1 variable at a time to ensure accuracy. This is why a rigid container is best. There is only 1 variable, being the amount of air inside the compressor. With the balloon, the surface area becomes a second variable. We need to test the effects of air pressure when all other conditions are constant.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 12:22:51 PM
]Duplicating something is fine if it was done in the first place. Much of the scientific stuff of theory has no physical model to start with to duplicate.
In bold above: Not a truer set of words spoken. The very fact we don't have those resources ensures that we can be duped to hell with almost any theory so called scientists come up with.

You act as though all these thousands of INDIVIDUALS from different countries, backgrounds, religious views, and political motives are all colluding in order to dupe us? This could be further from the truth. Scientists are vicious with each other. They critique each other to no end. I have no idea why you think the world is out to get you, but know that this is a sign of schizophrenia.

No, I don't reject the scientific community. I reject bullshit artists and question theoretical scientists that push stuff onto us that they cannot prove themselves and in many cases do not know what they're even saying in any real sense.

Don't you have any idea how hypocritical you sound? You have ZERO PROOF for any of your claims yet you keep shrieking and stomping and insisting that you are right and every other actual scientist on earth is wrong. You are no better than they are.

You can believe anything you want to. You can spew anything you feel like spewing. You can follow the indoctrinated way or your peers.
You can take the word of anyone you've never encountered and any model you've never seen working.
That is your prerogative but it does not make anything you say to me - true.

I choose to follow the most logical model available. A model that can actually explain the setting sun, satellites, eclipses, and actually has a working map.

That's what this topic is all about. I've also tested stuff. It doesn't matter whether you believe that or not. the issue for me is finding the truth. If your issue is also finding it, then you shouldn't even be fighting against anything alternate to what you were taught. You should be embracing the fact that you can actually try and test different avenues and see if any of them can cast doubt on the model that we've all been schooled into.

This is one of my favorite threads. I am excited FE believers are finally trying the scientific method to actually test their theories  (even though the balloon experiment has been conducted before). And when you measure for yourself the FACT that a balloon full of air both has more mass and weighs more than a deflated balloon, I hope you accept it.

Do you actually know all these people personally or are you merely reciting what's been parroted thousands of times?
Do you personally know anybody who has seen or measured anything like a firmament? Or are you merely reciting what dozens have parroted before?

You can do whatever you feel. You can go about your life with the stuff you were taught firmly adhered to your mind and reject every word I say. I do things to satisfy my inquisitive mind and as I do so, I hope to give people the opportunity to actually open their minds to at least have a serious think for themselves.

That's a great mindset. I hope you keep an open mind when you conduct this balloon experiment.


If something makes sense to me in a simple and logical way against something that does not make any sense at all in any way I look at it, then I'm going to go down only one road.

How does it make any logical sense to believe in a firmament when it goes against all logical thinking AND evidence, empirical or otherwise?



The man is the ceiling.

Wait, the man IS the ceiling? Let me get this straight. In this analogy, the people are representing air particles. So all the air on earth is kept under pressure by nothing but air?

What happens if you put a water balloon on a table? The water is kept under pressure by the balloon. But if you try to pop the balloon, the water will escape and drip over the edges of the table because nothing is keeping it in.


Only for any dense object placed within it and pushing against it.

Sorry the firmament isn't pushing against the atmosphere? Then where does all the pressure come from?

It was used as an analogy and no more than that. You're intelligent enough to distinguish that, I'm sure.

Obviously it is an analogy. I am simply telling you it is a poor one, as human pyramids do not accurately represent air particles moving within an enclosed space.

At sea level, yes. To our human perception.

This is constant at all levels of elevation. Not sure what you mean by the "to put human perception" bit. Can you name 1 thing that isn't based upon the human perception?


And yet if you're honest you do not know what gravity is and neither do scientists.
You're right. No scientist has yet discovered a particle or other source of gravitational energy. We can, however, measure it's effects with great accuracy. That's how we discovered Pluto in the first place. Scientists realized there must be another source of mass in our solar system to account for the shape of outer planet orbits. Using nothing but sheer calculations, scientists in Arizona were able to make visual confirmation of the planet decades ago. You can even visit your local observatory and see it for yourself, but your tinfoil hat is too large for you to enter the building. You even doubt Jupiter has moons, even though you can build your own telescope and see for yourself just like Galileo did thousands of years ago. For some reason, you refuse. I wonder why that is.


My model does.

No it doesnt. If you knew anything about fluids, you would know that absent any other force, they exert even pressure throughout the ENTIRE SYSTEM. In the FE model, there is no gravity, so what other force is pushing all this air toward the Earth's surface?
Let's leave it at that before this becomes a tit for tat with no end.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 12:24:58 PM
That would be adding a second variable. The best experiments only study 1 variable at a time to ensure accuracy. This is why a rigid container is best. There is only 1 variable, being the amount of air inside the compressor. With the balloon, the surface area becomes a second variable. We need to test the effects of air pressure when all other conditions are constant.

It depends what your aim is. For this kind of experiment, with a natural proof/disproof structure, it would seem more practical to first determine what needs the effects tested of. I'll admit my background's more mathematical, so I think in those terms, but it's usually better to know a solution exists before you start calculating it. We're not working from scratch, there are two existing models and only one of which predicts surface area having an influence, in the opposite direction to what the other model would say would happen.
Predictive power is just as important as falsifiability. Plus, the advantage of the balloon case is that it's pretty easy to replicate. About £10 on Amazon to get the necessary equipment for the basic form, even assuming you wouldn't have a scale and balloon around the house as a lot of people would. So, if a RE-favouring result comes out FEers who might disbelieve can verify: if the denpressure-favouring result comes out, disbelieving REers can in turn check too.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 12:30:25 PM
Let's leave it at that before this becomes a tit for tat with no end.

OK. I was hoping you had some actual answers for me. Now I see I have asked questions that you simply cannot answer. I accept your conceit. I have to commend you, you have a naturally inquisitive mind. This is a good thing. I just hope that you keep an open mind, so if you ever actually see all the evidence of a Globe earth you don't just shy away from it (like you are doing with me right now).

You share this characteristic with a person whose beliefs are based upon faith and faith alone. When faced with biblical scriptures explicitly explaining the logistics of buying and selling slaves, most Christians shy away from the conversation as well. I just hope (against hope) your theories aren't based upon such blind faith.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: markjo on August 04, 2016, 01:05:23 PM
Are air molecules the only molecules that expand, or can liquid and solid molecules expand too?  Why doesn't a block of wood expand when put into a vacuum chamber if it has air molecules trapped inside it?
Some wood probably would (pardon the pun) but some wood is actually very porous.
A denser wood would probably start to break down if a suitable strong and a strong chamber was used.
Well, that sounds like it would be easy enough to test.  But why would the wood molecules break down instead of expand to fill the chamber?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 01:11:56 PM
Enough talk!  Let's science!!

Here we see my compressor at 0 psi weighing 52.8lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/hws2h08on/2016_08_04_13_51_57.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/hws2h08on/)
(https://s31.postimg.org/5o2huauvr/2016_08_04_13_51_54.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/5o2huauvr/)

Here we see it at 120psi weighing in at 54.3lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/lhny08d87/2016_08_04_13_57_35.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lhny08d87/)
(https://s31.postimg.org/4iezkz20n/2016_08_04_13_58_20.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/4iezkz20n/)

Discuss!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 04, 2016, 01:14:19 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine? 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 04, 2016, 01:37:37 PM
We should know what volume of the container it has? It first accumulates some air within some cavity, right?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 01:38:03 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
I dunno, how big is your compressor? What does it have to do with the topic, anyway?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 04, 2016, 01:40:16 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
I dunno, how big is your compressor? What does it have to do with the topic, anyway?

You seem to be trying to impress us.  How big is yours? 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 01:43:54 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
I dunno, how big is your compressor? What does it have to do with the topic, anyway?

You seem to be trying to impress us.  How big is yours?

You seem to be ignoring the results of the study.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 04, 2016, 01:50:15 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
I dunno, how big is your compressor? What does it have to do with the topic, anyway?

You seem to be trying to impress us.  How big is yours?

You seem to be ignoring the results of the study.

Which study measured the size of any of our air compressors?  ???
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 01:57:54 PM
We should know what volume of the container it has? It first accumulates some air within some cavity, right?

17 gallon.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the second question.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 01:58:52 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
I dunno, how big is your compressor? What does it have to do with the topic, anyway?

You seem to be trying to impress us.  How big is yours?

You seem to be ignoring the results of the study.

Ignore jroa.  He's just trying to flip over the Monopoly board.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 04, 2016, 02:01:52 PM
Seems to be some poor sportsmanship in this thread.  Sorry if I brought that on. 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 04, 2016, 02:37:14 PM
Does this help:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2a3anz/does_a_compressed_air_tank_weigh_more_when_filled/

and

1 cubic foot of air weighs 0.0807 lbs at standard pressure and temperature
there is approx 80 cubic feet of air in a normal rental tank at 2400 psi
so the air in the tank weighs approximately 6.4 lbs
If you enter at 2400 and exit at 500 then you will be about 5.1 lbs lighter than when you went in.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 02:39:11 PM
It is becoming clear to me. There are only 2 or 3 posters on this entire website who truly believe and will try to logically defend their hypothesis. Every other FE believer I have spoken with in this forum has been exactly like JROA. They ignore any logical reasoning and attempt to change the subject so nobody notices their flawed thinking. We notice.

Do you?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 04, 2016, 02:43:07 PM
So, which part of my statements do you disagree with?  ???
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 04, 2016, 02:48:42 PM
BTW, it was ignored, but my syringe experiment showed that there is no connection between weight and atmospheric pressure.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 03:12:21 PM
Are air molecules the only molecules that expand, or can liquid and solid molecules expand too?  Why doesn't a block of wood expand when put into a vacuum chamber if it has air molecules trapped inside it?
Some wood probably would (pardon the pun) but some wood is actually very porous.
A denser wood would probably start to break down if a suitable strong and a strong chamber was used.
Well, that sounds like it would be easy enough to test.  But why would the wood molecules break down instead of expand to fill the chamber?
They don't break down. They expand and break down the wood.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 03:17:18 PM
Enough talk!  Let's science!!

Here we see my compressor at 0 psi weighing 52.8lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/hws2h08on/2016_08_04_13_51_57.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/hws2h08on/)
(https://s31.postimg.org/5o2huauvr/2016_08_04_13_51_54.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/5o2huauvr/)

Here we see it at 120psi weighing in at 54.3lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/lhny08d87/2016_08_04_13_57_35.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lhny08d87/)
(https://s31.postimg.org/4iezkz20n/2016_08_04_13_58_20.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/4iezkz20n/)

Discuss!
How much of that excess weight is water?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 03:23:28 PM
Why don't you come up with an experiment that will satisfy you?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 03:26:12 PM
Why don't you come up with an experiment that will satisfy you?
I am satisfied.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 04, 2016, 03:28:41 PM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 03:31:49 PM
Enough talk!  Let's science!!

Here we see my compressor at 0 psi weighing 52.8lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/hws2h08on/2016_08_04_13_51_57.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/hws2h08on/)
(https://s31.postimg.org/5o2huauvr/2016_08_04_13_51_54.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/5o2huauvr/)

Here we see it at 120psi weighing in at 54.3lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/lhny08d87/2016_08_04_13_57_35.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lhny08d87/)
(https://s31.postimg.org/4iezkz20n/2016_08_04_13_58_20.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/4iezkz20n/)

Discuss!
How much of that excess weight is water?

Well according to weather.com the humidity where I'm at is 9%.  I'm not totally sure what that number translates into with predicting how much water there is.  So I'm going to throw out a guess and say less than 10% of what's been compressed into that tank is water vapor.  If anyone knows what "humidity" means in the context of a weather report is please feel free to correct me.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 03:32:26 PM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
That's right. It's not as simple as 123 these experiments, are they?

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 03:33:40 PM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.

You'd have the same challenge with a balloon.  Worse even if you're using your own breath to fill it up.

Maybe I'll do a balloon test later.  I don't have any right now.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
That's right. It's not as simple as 123 these experiments, are they?

What would make the experiment more transparent? A balloon? Harder to accurately measure it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 04:08:35 PM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
That's right. It's not as simple as 123 these experiments, are they?

I'm not sure the presence of humidity invalidates the experiment.  Whatever humidity in the tank is also present in the air around it.  Wouldn't that cancel out any effect humidity might have?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 04, 2016, 05:14:34 PM
I've gone ahead and updated Experiment 3 with the Balloon Hypothesis.  I was very busy at work today and skimmed the thread and only halfway understand the experiment so If there is some information that needs more clearly defined please feel free to PM me.  I don't want it getting lost in the pages.

Also I'd encourage everyone to do all the experiments if possible.  I'm not sure if I can accurately do number 1, even with a compressor so it might be up to others to test.

I understand that number 2 could result in some issues with floating.  Would a weight to hold the object down and water covering both the object and weight to the same volume level in each container make the test inaccurate?  (Assuming the same weight is used in each test).
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 04, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
I dunno, how big is your compressor? What does it have to do with the topic, anyway?

You seem to be trying to impress us.  How big is yours?

You seem to be ignoring the results of the study.

Which study measured the size of any of our air compressors?  ???

Jroa, I'd appreciate it if you do not derail the thread.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 04, 2016, 05:19:25 PM
Feel free to pm me your results and evidence of results and I can add them to the appropriate experiment posts too.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 06:07:26 PM
I still see nothing wrong with the experiment already completed with an air compressor? What does humidity have to do with such an experiment? I would be glad to have some sort of input from a denpressure advocate.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 06:24:57 PM
I still see nothing wrong with the experiment already completed with an air compressor? What does humidity have to do with such an experiment? I would be glad to have some sort of input from a denpressure advocate.

I thought about it a little more, did some googling and lo and behold, my air compressor has a drain valve. So I can measure exactly how much of that gain was water. 1oz it turns out.

I'm going to need a better reason to declare that experiment invalid other than humidity.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 04, 2016, 06:38:23 PM
Enough talk!  Let's science!!

Here we see my compressor at 0 psi weighing 52.8lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/hws2h08on/2016_08_04_13_51_57.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/hws2h08on/)

Here we see it at 120psi weighing in at 54.3lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/lhny08d87/2016_08_04_13_57_35.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lhny08d87/)

Discuss!

Simple.   Just apply  PV = nRT,    since  Volume,Temperature and R ( assuming ideal gas laws and no phase changes)  are constant only n and P change and they change in linear fashion,   so converting from psig to psia,  the pressure has risen from 14.7 to 134.7 or 9.16 times, so the amount of air in the volume V is 9.16 times. The density of air is 0.0765 lbs/ft3  so  Weight change = V*0.0765*9.16 - V*0.0765  = V*0.624 lbs

Since crutonius didn't tell us the volume V,  (jroa derailed that discussion)  but he did tell us the weight change, so we can backtrack for an estimate of his compressor volume    deltaW = 54.2 - 52.8 = 1.4lbs = V*0.624,   V = 1.4/0.624 = 2.2 cu ft

So what is the actual compressor tank volume?  How close is close enough for a proof?

There will be a temperature change caused by compression,  but given the thermal mass of the steel tank I'd expect it to only contribute a few extra psi to the pressure gage.

PS.  When is America going to join the rest of the world and adopt the metric system!!!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 06:51:25 PM
Enough talk!  Let's science!!

Here we see my compressor at 0 psi weighing 52.8lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/hws2h08on/2016_08_04_13_51_57.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/hws2h08on/)

Here we see it at 120psi weighing in at 54.3lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/lhny08d87/2016_08_04_13_57_35.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lhny08d87/)

Discuss!

Simple.   Just apply  PV = nRT,    since  Volume,Temperature and R ( assuming ideal gas laws and no phase changes)  are constant only n and P change and they change in linear fashion,   so converting from psig to psia,  the pressure has risen from 14.7 to 134.7 or 9.16 times, so the amount of air in the volume V is 9.16 times. The density of air is 0.0765 lbs/ft3  so  Weight change = V*0.0765*9.16 - V*0.0765  = V*0.624 lbs

Since crutonius didn't tell us the volume V,  (jroa derailed that discussion)  but he did tell us the weight change, so we can backtrack for an estimate of his compressor volume    deltaW = 54.2 - 52.8 = 1.4lbs = V*0.624,   V = 1.4/0.624 = 2.2 cu ft

So what is the actual compressor tank volume?  How close is close enough for a proof?

There will be a temperature change caused by compression,  but given the thermal mass of the steel tank I'd expect it to only contribute a few extra psi to the pressure gage.

PS.  When is America going to join the rest of the world and adopt the metric system!!!

Nice math. My compressor is 17 gallons. Which equals 2.273 cubic feet, very close indeed.

Regarding a proof or disproof of denpressure it's not how much weight gains there was. It's that there was any at all. In fact denpressure predicted that the weight should decrease.

I do share your frustration with the Imperial system. But that's the country I'm in.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sandmanMike on August 04, 2016, 06:56:55 PM
Would den pressure actually expect a weight loss in a compressor though if there is no expansion?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 04, 2016, 07:01:53 PM
Enough talk!  Let's science!!

Here we see my compressor at 0 psi weighing 52.8lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/hws2h08on/2016_08_04_13_51_57.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/hws2h08on/)

Here we see it at 120psi weighing in at 54.3lb:
(https://s31.postimg.org/lhny08d87/2016_08_04_13_57_35.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lhny08d87/)

Discuss!

Simple.   Just apply  PV = nRT,    since  Volume,Temperature and R ( assuming ideal gas laws and no phase changes)  are constant only n and P change and they change in linear fashion,   so converting from psig to psia,  the pressure has risen from 14.7 to 134.7 or 9.16 times, so the amount of air in the volume V is 9.16 times. The density of air is 0.0765 lbs/ft3  so  Weight change = V*0.0765*9.16 - V*0.0765  = V*0.624 lbs

Since crutonius didn't tell us the volume V,  (jroa derailed that discussion)  but he did tell us the weight change, so we can backtrack for an estimate of his compressor volume    deltaW = 54.2 - 52.8 = 1.4lbs = V*0.624,   V = 1.4/0.624 = 2.2 cu ft

So what is the actual compressor tank volume?  How close is close enough for a proof?

There will be a temperature change caused by compression,  but given the thermal mass of the steel tank I'd expect it to only contribute a few extra psi to the pressure gage.

PS.  When is America going to join the rest of the world and adopt the metric system!!!

Nice math. My compressor is 17 gallons. Which equals 2.273 cubic feet, very close indeed.

Regarding a proof or disproof of denpressure it's not how much weight gains there was. It's that there was any at all. In fact denpressure predicted that the weight should decrease.

I do share your frustration with the Imperial system. But that's the country I'm in.

That's closer than I was expecting.   2.2 predicted,  2.273 actual.      I'm calling that a failure for denspressure.  Feel free to speak up if you disagree.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 07:04:27 PM
Where did Scepti go? I suppose he's more keen on thought experiments. Actual science with data proving him wrong doesn't interest him. Still waiting on an FE believer to give their interpretation  of the results.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2016, 07:32:08 PM
Moving right along since I still have my air compressor out, experiment 1:

The pressure is set at 150psi.  The distance between the nozzle and the surface is 2 feet.

One piece of steel weighing in at 3.051lb
(https://s32.postimg.org/ksiui29v5/iron.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/ksiui29v5/)
Apply air, 3.133
(https://s32.postimg.org/6nd1g90tt/ironair.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/6nd1g90tt/)
One piece of wood weighing in at .048lb
(https://s32.postimg.org/p5he0hilt/wood.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/p5he0hilt/)
Apply air, 12.8
(https://s32.postimg.org/3kgwqmb8x/woodair.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/3kgwqmb8x/)

And now we soak it overnight for, reasons:
(https://s32.postimg.org/i0zkrgbch/soak.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/i0zkrgbch/)
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 07:39:00 PM
Moving right along since I still have my air compressor out, experiment 1:

The pressure is set at 150psi.  The distance between the nozzle and the surface is 2 feet.

One piece of steel weighing in at 3.051lb
(https://s32.postimg.org/ksiui29v5/iron.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/ksiui29v5/)
Apply air, 3.133
(https://s32.postimg.org/6nd1g90tt/ironair.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/6nd1g90tt/)
One piece of wood weighing in at .048lb
(https://s32.postimg.org/p5he0hilt/wood.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/p5he0hilt/)
Apply air, 12.8
(https://s32.postimg.org/3kgwqmb8x/woodair.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/3kgwqmb8x/)

And now we soak it overnight for, reasons:
(https://s32.postimg.org/i0zkrgbch/soak.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/i0zkrgbch/)

As I understand it, denpressure theory states the metal object should experience greater weight gain. Well it's weight increased by around 10%

The wood, however, weighed around 25 times the original weight.

Denpressure: 0

Gravity: 2
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 04, 2016, 08:09:45 PM
Denpressure: 0

Gravity: 2

The ideal gas laws are all that's required to understand and quantify these experiments,   they are extremely well known and date back to the 1830's,   and for anyone interested the ideal gas laws can be derived completely from first principles ( only minimal assumptions ) using the kinetic theory of gases.

Back to the balloon experiment,  I have an easier and more direct method that anyone can easily apply. 

Get a long straight  stick and find the balance point using a knife edge,  mark that point,   now get another stick a little less than half the length of the first.  Use it to mark off equal distances from the center balance point.  Mark those points and now tie short equal length pieces of fishing line to those two points.   Get two balloons and with both un-inflated tie the balloons to the fishing lines, check that it still balances perfectly,  if not adjust the center support point till it balances exactly. 

Now inflate just one of the balloons,  with a bicycle pump or similar,   place back on the knife edge and see if the inflated balloon is heavier or not.  This method eliminates the need for precision scales.   You could now add small weights to the lighter side to see how much is required to balance it,  maybe grains of rice?

Instead of a knife edge you could hang the thing from the roof with fishing line.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2016, 08:20:03 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
Derailing attempt #1: 0 out of 10!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2016, 08:21:48 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
I dunno, how big is your compressor? What does it have to do with the topic, anyway?

You seem to be trying to impress us.  How big is yours?
Derailing attempt #2: 2 out of 10! - getting better!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2016, 08:24:04 PM
Wow, is your compressor bigger than mine?
I dunno, how big is your compressor? What does it have to do with the topic, anyway?

You seem to be trying to impress us.  How big is yours?

You seem to be ignoring the results of the study.

Which study measured the size of any of our air compressors?  ???
Derailing attempt #3: 3 out of 10! - Trying harder!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 08:25:23 PM


The ideal gas laws are all that's required to understand and quantify these experiments,   they are extremely well known and date back to the 1830's,   and for anyone interested the ideal gas laws can be derived completely from first principles ( only minimal assumptions ) using the kinetic theory of gases.


I know of these experiments. It was fun watching the FE believers nod along, agreeing with all the procedures, expecting a different result from a centuries old experiment. This forum is very entertaining.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2016, 08:26:16 PM
Seems to be some poor sportsmanship in this thread.  Sorry if I brought that on.
Derailing attempt #4: 5 out of 10! - You got a reaction, but still need to get better at this derailing!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: rabinoz on August 04, 2016, 08:28:42 PM
So, which part of my statements do you disagree with?  ???
Derailing attempt #5: 5 out of 10! - Now you're starting to divert attention from any real discussion!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 04, 2016, 08:32:33 PM
I am guessing Scepti is regrouping and evaluating the data before he replies.

My guess he will dismiss the results for some unproven reason.

This is why FE's tend to stick to thought experiments, things like zooming in and out on ships near the horizon and claiming pictures from NASA are fake.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 04, 2016, 08:47:07 PM
I am guessing Scepti is regrouping and evaluating the data before he replies.

He is in the UK,  so it's a bit early to be up and about.   
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 04, 2016, 09:34:51 PM

I really like your no nonsense approach, just do it and stfu. I am heterosexual, but I am working a little bit of a man crush lol. :-*
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 05, 2016, 01:10:05 AM
Here are the results of Experiment #3 the balloon experiment

Balloon before inflation.
(https://s25.postimg.org/yrijzxfv3/IMG_1608.jpg)

Balloon Inflated.
(https://s25.postimg.org/d2f2ibo9b/IMG_1610.jpg)

Balloon after deflation.
(https://s25.postimg.org/tc58l7yxb/IMG_1611.jpg)

So the inflated balloon weighed heavier by 0.544 grams after inflation.

The difference between before and after inflation, might be some residual humidity left in the balloon?   But only 0.113 grams  it doesn't change the result.

My prediction was for the inflated balloon to be heavier by about 1 gram,  but that depended almost entirely on the elasticity of the balloon material to determine what the pressure was inside the balloon.   

Denspressure predicted a loss of weight, the experiment clearly showed a weight gain,  so I call that a fail for denspressure theory.


Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 05, 2016, 01:15:53 AM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
That's right. It's not as simple as 123 these experiments, are they?

I'm not sure the presence of humidity invalidates the experiment.  Whatever humidity in the tank is also present in the air around it.  Wouldn't that cancel out any effect humidity might have?
It's tricky because we're dealing with a huge energy source which is also agitating the atmosphere amid this humidity and yet that very same atmosphere has been super compressed inside a tank and under much less agitation.
It's a real tricky experiment.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 05, 2016, 01:21:52 AM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
That's right. It's not as simple as 123 these experiments, are they?

I'm not sure the presence of humidity invalidates the experiment.  Whatever humidity in the tank is also present in the air around it.  Wouldn't that cancel out any effect humidity might have?
It's tricky because we're dealing with a huge energy source which is also agitating the atmosphere amid this humidity and yet that very same atmosphere has been super compressed inside a tank and under much less agitation.
It's a real tricky experiment.
Yet we know divers compressed air bottles are heavier when full.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 05, 2016, 01:24:37 AM
I've gone ahead and updated Experiment 3 with the Balloon Hypothesis.  I was very busy at work today and skimmed the thread and only halfway understand the experiment so If there is some information that needs more clearly defined please feel free to PM me.  I don't want it getting lost in the pages.

Also I'd encourage everyone to do all the experiments if possible.  I'm not sure if I can accurately do number 1, even with a compressor so it might be up to others to test.

I understand that number 2 could result in some issues with floating.  Would a weight to hold the object down and water covering both the object and weight to the same volume level in each container make the test inaccurate?  (Assuming the same weight is used in each test).
Number 2 might be helped of someone could put the floating item in a pressurise chamber of water to force the water into the item (wood for instance) and then see how much further it sinks.
The chamber would mimic a depth of water pressure upon the item and would save adding a weight to allow the item to have it's atmosphere squeezed out.

Maybe babyhighspeed might have something like this.
If not, the weight will suffice as it should start to show something.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 05, 2016, 02:15:17 AM
Would den pressure actually expect a weight loss in a compressor though if there is no expansion?
No. And this is the massive problem with experiments like this.
I'm actually open to any experiment done though just to see all of the results and to see where it all ties in or doesn't if that ends up the case.

I think it's going to be a mass thought on the best ways to actually show definitive results, but if we are all trying to solve a puzzle, we can all look for the relevant pieces like we are doing and see if we can find better fitting one's as we go along.


I'm 100% sure on this so I'm going to make sure that I fight for it all the way.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 05, 2016, 02:21:37 AM
Here are the results of Experiment #3 the balloon experiment

Balloon before inflation.
(https://s25.postimg.org/yrijzxfv3/IMG_1608.jpg)

Balloon Inflated.
(https://s25.postimg.org/d2f2ibo9b/IMG_1610.jpg)

Balloon after deflation.
(https://s25.postimg.org/tc58l7yxb/IMG_1611.jpg)

So the inflated balloon weighed heavier by 0.544 grams after inflation.

The difference between before and after inflation, might be some residual humidity left in the balloon?   But only 0.113 grams  it doesn't change the result.

My prediction was for the inflated balloon to be heavier by about 1 gram,  but that depended almost entirely on the elasticity of the balloon material to determine what the pressure was inside the balloon.   

Denspressure predicted a loss of weight, the experiment clearly showed a weight gain,  so I call that a fail for denspressure theory.
There's no fail. There's nothing conclusive at all.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 05, 2016, 02:24:01 AM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
That's right. It's not as simple as 123 these experiments, are they?

I'm not sure the presence of humidity invalidates the experiment.  Whatever humidity in the tank is also present in the air around it.  Wouldn't that cancel out any effect humidity might have?
It's tricky because we're dealing with a huge energy source which is also agitating the atmosphere amid this humidity and yet that very same atmosphere has been super compressed inside a tank and under much less agitation.
It's a real tricky experiment.
Yet we know divers compressed air bottles are heavier when full.
Why wouldn't they be?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 05, 2016, 02:27:58 AM
I've gone ahead and updated Experiment 3 with the Balloon Hypothesis.  I was very busy at work today and skimmed the thread and only halfway understand the experiment so If there is some information that needs more clearly defined please feel free to PM me.  I don't want it getting lost in the pages.

Also I'd encourage everyone to do all the experiments if possible.  I'm not sure if I can accurately do number 1, even with a compressor so it might be up to others to test.

I understand that number 2 could result in some issues with floating.  Would a weight to hold the object down and water covering both the object and weight to the same volume level in each container make the test inaccurate?  (Assuming the same weight is used in each test).
Number 2 might be helped of someone could put the floating item in a pressurise chamber of water to force the water into the item (wood for instance) and then see how much further it sinks.
The chamber would mimic a depth of water pressure upon the item and would save adding a weight to allow the item to have it's atmosphere squeezed out.

Maybe babyhighspeed might have something like this.
If not, the weight will suffice as it should start to show something.

I have a few different presses ranging from 50 tons to over 50k. Perhaps build a metal water tight chamber and press the top down? That is what first comes to mind.

The fuel systems I work with , the tanks are pressurized, but only to about 40 psi, high volume of flow, but low pressure. I don't know if that would be enough pressure to perform the test?

These are things that first come to mind of available items.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 05, 2016, 02:32:52 AM
This is for liquid...i have equipment for pressurising gas. I also have a machine that can create a gaseous smoke like dye. If that curbs anyone's creative thought process.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 05, 2016, 02:38:21 AM
I've gone ahead and updated Experiment 3 with the Balloon Hypothesis.  I was very busy at work today and skimmed the thread and only halfway understand the experiment so If there is some information that needs more clearly defined please feel free to PM me.  I don't want it getting lost in the pages.

Also I'd encourage everyone to do all the experiments if possible.  I'm not sure if I can accurately do number 1, even with a compressor so it might be up to others to test.

I understand that number 2 could result in some issues with floating.  Would a weight to hold the object down and water covering both the object and weight to the same volume level in each container make the test inaccurate?  (Assuming the same weight is used in each test).
Number 2 might be helped of someone could put the floating item in a pressurise chamber of water to force the water into the item (wood for instance) and then see how much further it sinks.
The chamber would mimic a depth of water pressure upon the item and would save adding a weight to allow the item to have it's atmosphere squeezed out.

Maybe babyhighspeed might have something like this.
If not, the weight will suffice as it should start to show something.

I have a few different presses ranging from 50 tons to over 50k. Perhaps build a metal water tight chamber and press the top down? That is what first comes to mind.

The fuel systems I work with , the tanks are pressurized, but only to about 40 psi, high volume of flow, but low pressure. I don't know if that would be enough pressure to perform the test?

These are things that first come to mind of available items.
You've seen fence posts that are under pressure treatment, right?
Now we know that the pressure treatment they get forces the preservative through the pores of the wood to a certain depth. But even under that pressure there is still a lot of atmosphere trapped within that wood.
However, the wood comes out super heavy.

So realistically if we can use a small block of wood of say, something like 2x2x2 inches and put it under decent pressure in a strong but small enough chamber of water, weighing it beforehand then after, whilst also seeing what that weight is against a few items of equal size, of different densities.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 05, 2016, 03:05:57 AM
Here are the results of Experiment #3 the balloon experiment

Balloon before inflation.
(https://s25.postimg.org/yrijzxfv3/IMG_1608.jpg)

Balloon Inflated.
(https://s25.postimg.org/d2f2ibo9b/IMG_1610.jpg)

Balloon after deflation.
(https://s25.postimg.org/tc58l7yxb/IMG_1611.jpg)

So the inflated balloon weighed heavier by 0.544 grams after inflation.

The difference between before and after inflation, might be some residual humidity left in the balloon?   But only 0.113 grams  it doesn't change the result.

My prediction was for the inflated balloon to be heavier by about 1 gram,  but that depended almost entirely on the elasticity of the balloon material to determine what the pressure was inside the balloon.   

Denspressure predicted a loss of weight, the experiment clearly showed a weight gain,  so I call that a fail for denspressure theory.
There's no fail. There's nothing conclusive at all.

I'll wait for a few more experimental results to come in,  but unless you can predict, calculate and explain the experimental results,  then denspressure theory is in deep trouble. 

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sokarul on August 05, 2016, 06:54:23 AM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
That's right. It's not as simple as 123 these experiments, are they?

I'm not sure the presence of humidity invalidates the experiment.  Whatever humidity in the tank is also present in the air around it.  Wouldn't that cancel out any effect humidity might have?
It's tricky because we're dealing with a huge energy source which is also agitating the atmosphere amid this humidity and yet that very same atmosphere has been super compressed inside a tank and under much less agitation.
It's a real tricky experiment.
Yet we know divers compressed air bottles are heavier when full.
Why wouldn't they be?
It's impossible for air pressure to know the tank is full and that it need to provide more force.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 05, 2016, 08:12:27 AM
How much of that excess weight is water?

Yep, and this is another good reason why a balloon's a better example: transparency. We'd generally be able to see it's the same balloon, and usually be able to see if anything else is in it.
That's right. It's not as simple as 123 these experiments, are they?

I'm not sure the presence of humidity invalidates the experiment.  Whatever humidity in the tank is also present in the air around it.  Wouldn't that cancel out any effect humidity might have?
It's tricky because we're dealing with a huge energy source which is also agitating the atmosphere amid this humidity and yet that very same atmosphere has been super compressed inside a tank and under much less agitation.
It's a real tricky experiment.

I have to point this out and I hope it doesn't come off as snarky. It's not a tricky experiment for those of us that modeled it after basic physics. It's actually pretty straight forward. You might have noticed a few posts ago rayzer correctly calculated the size of tank even though I didn't include that in the original data.

As for humidity we can rule that out as I've drained the tank afterwards and there was less than an ounce of water.

What other factors do you believe might have caused this experiment to produce results which are incompatible with denpressure?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 05, 2016, 09:47:15 AM
Wow this is pretty pathetic

Before experiments were conducted Scepti had no problems with the setup or the theory behind each experiment. Now that the results are different from what he expected, he rejects the findings. He doesn't even say why. He just says "these tests are tricky" or "that's inconclusive" without providing any insight as to how we could improve the experiment.

Face it, scepti. Your theory has no leg to stand on. You are in denial.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 05, 2016, 10:11:38 AM
Wow this is pretty pathetic

Before experiments were conducted Scepti had no problems with the setup or the theory behind each experiment. Now that the results are different from what he expected, he rejects the findings. He doesn't even say why. He just says "these tests are tricky" or "that's inconclusive" without providing any insight as to how we could improve the experiment.

Face it, scepti. Your theory has no leg to stand on. You are in denial.

Just as I predicted earlier in this thread when he stopped posting for a short time. 

This is not the first or the last time he will do this. 

@scepti

If you are truly searching for answers you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink your model.  If not you will just continue going down the wrong path resulting in never finding the right answer.

Lets just assume you are right and gravity does not exist.  How will you be able to put the puzzle together if you ignore things that says your current model is wrong? 

To advance you can not only look at what says you are right, but you need to accept things that say you are wrong.  When observations say you are wrong then you adjust and start looking at things from another angle. 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 05, 2016, 10:53:11 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 05, 2016, 10:55:44 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 05, 2016, 11:00:21 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Yes it does.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 05, 2016, 11:06:05 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

I drew no such conclusion.  I'm just a lab monkey who's competent at carrying out experiments.

You might consider taking some time to analyze the data and suggest a new experiment, perhaps even revise your theory appropriately.  Time permitting, I'd be happy to run tests and provide feedback.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 05, 2016, 11:06:30 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

Why not come up with an experiment on your own and post it here?

How about pointing out the flaws in the experiments already conducted? 

If you are interested in revealing the truth then you should do at least one or both of the above.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Mainframes on August 05, 2016, 11:22:34 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Yes it does.

No it doesn't. Unless of course you weigh more on a sunny day....
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 05, 2016, 11:27:30 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.

Yes it does.

If you weigh something in a vacuum chamber it will weigh more than it would at the atmospheric pressure at sea level.

Archimedes Law says the upward force will decrease as the fluid surrounding the object density decreases.  The air is the fluid.

Maybe when babyhighspeed gets his vacuum chamber up and running he can take something like cork and piece of steel weighing the same at sea level and place them on a balance scale.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 05, 2016, 11:30:45 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Yes it does.
please show how with some examples over a range of pressures..
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 05, 2016, 11:32:47 AM
This is for liquid...i have equipment for pressurising gas. I also have a machine that can create a gaseous smoke like dye. If that curbs anyone's creative thought process.

When your vacuum chamber your complete and if you have access to a balance scale this would be an interesting experiment.

Take two objects of different densities. I suggest cork or stryofoam and a piece of lead or steel.  they need to weigh the same.

Place both on the balance scale, evacuate the chamber and see what happens.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2016, 12:41:31 PM
If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

It's fair to say that the experiments aren't conclusive, there's always room for something to not be taken account or for something to be overlooked, or indeed for simple experimental error, but the latter can be corrected for and there would need to be some example for the former.
As it does seem as though the presence of air inside an object (whether a balloon or tank) does increase its weight, then there would need to be an explanation.

It could be human error, but repetition makes that seem unlikely (as does the correction for water weight). So we're left with the option of finding the explanation. Assuming that the inside of a balloon is not independent from the external stacks (as seems reasonable), then perhaps the heightened pressure (compressed molecules trying to expand) on the inside acts through the balloon and creates extra force?
That's the main recourse I can see, and would apply to both the balloon and compressed air cases, and does seem in line with my understanding of denpressure, though I admit that's incomplete.
As it is, you're the only one with a more intuitive understanding of denpressure. I typically just think in terms of inverse buoyancy, which definitely does away with my initial objections, but that alone isn't enough in this case as we're on new ground: higher concentrations of displaced air.

(If, alternatively, you want to move on, just say, there's probably not much more discussion that can be had on this exact topic if you don't want to linger, and I know i'm definitely tired of seeing REers ganging up).
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 05, 2016, 03:13:39 PM
Here's an experiment you can do in your own house. Place a ball bearing in a bicycle tire, patch the hole, and weigh the tire empty of air. Next, pump as much air into the balloon as you can (using a bike pump with a pressure gauge) and weigh it again. According to you, the extra pressure should make the ball bearing weigh more, but the tire would weigh exactly the same.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2016, 03:28:32 PM
Here's an experiment you can do in your own house. Place a ball bearing in a bicycle tire, patch the hole, and weigh the tire empty of air. Next, pump as much air into the balloon as you can (using a bike pump with a pressure gauge) and weigh it again. According to you, the extra pressure should make the ball bearing weigh more, but the tire would weigh exactly the same.

To be rigorous, it might be better to weigh the tyre inflated to a set pressure, weigh the ball bearing, then weigh the tyre with ball bearing inflated to that pressure.
The response, though, is likely that in the environment of the tyre the forces act on all sides of the ball bearing and are balanced, so you'd only get the normal weight.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 05, 2016, 03:30:02 PM
Exactly. You would get the same weight. But in Scepti's world, you shouldn't. That is why it is a good experiment.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 05, 2016, 03:37:46 PM
Onward and upwards, experiment #2

steel pre soak 3.051
post soak 3.051

(https://s31.postimg.org/ft2j5pxbr/soaksteel.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/ft2j5pxbr/)

wood pre soak .048
post soak .07

(https://s31.postimg.org/vftsj3b3r/soakwood.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/vftsj3b3r/)
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 05, 2016, 03:47:35 PM
Oh, one more detail on #2.  Here's a picture of the board cut in half.

(https://s32.postimg.org/xyri6xi2p/cut.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/xyri6xi2p/)

It's not super obvious from a picture but the water has completely saturated the board.  There's no dry center.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 05, 2016, 04:00:55 PM
Alright. Hard day of sciencing done. Time to get drunk and do yard work.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2016, 04:03:51 PM
Exactly. You would get the same weight. But in Scepti's world, you shouldn't. That is why it is a good experiment.
You do realise I just gave the explanation from the denpressure model, right?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 05, 2016, 04:09:38 PM
Oh. Why would the forces act on all sides? I thought they only acted down.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 05, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Oh. Why would the forces act on all sides? I thought they only acted down.

They do in general, essentially due to inverse buoyancy: we push up from the ground, everything we do moves things away from the ground, so they get pushed back. A swimming pool's a good analogy. Actually the equal-weight answer was wrong, I think.
Once in a pressurised environment though, like a tyre, the additional pressure comes from all sides.
If anything, the extra molecules would reduce the weight because they act on all sides. Easiest analogy, to adopt the swimming pool analogy again with a more typical liquid than water, put an object in the solid form of that liquid (ice is a bad example as it floats on water, I'm going by the fact solids are the easiest example of a densely packed fluid to visualise) then it certainly wouldn't gain buoyancy. It'd sink: which, transferring the analogy to reality, might mean the object would be lighter.
Though, of course, an object in water sinks due to gravity or denpressure or whatever (actually I'm interested in how denpressure would work underwater, but that's neither here nor there right now), it wouldn't necessarily be the case in the denpressure system. The theory's kinda hard to explain, but in practice you can see that in a densely packed group of molecules, any movement/acceleration would be reduced, not increased, so in turn the force would be reduced too.

Admittedly I'm no expert on denpressure, and it's possible I'm making a mistake.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: rabinoz on August 05, 2016, 04:35:53 PM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Yes it does.
Sceppy, finally you have it!

The higher the atmospheric pressure (well, density) the less an object weighs. It's called buoyancy, Archimedes principle.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 05, 2016, 06:27:51 PM
Alright. Hard day of sciencing done. Time to get drunk and do yard work.

I'll agree to half of what you said,  you guess which half.

The question I have,  is denspressure a self consistent system?..   let's forget experiments for a minute and consider denspressure in it's abstract form,  what are the equations that govern what we measure as weight.   In conventional physics it's -mg,   what's the equivalent in denspressure?   

Following Jane's lead and suggesting it's inverse buoyancy,  then the only factors we need to consider are the density of the surrounding medium and the density of the object itself,  so let's assume an object of volume Vo and a density of  Md for the medium and Od for the object,  now the missing link,  what is the origin of the downwards force?  That's where pressure enters the equation,  but I'm unclear on what form the maths should take, 

In conventional physics it's simply the weight of the medium displaced,  which in this case the force would be Fobject = -g Vo*Md  In words, the force is equal to the volume of the object times the density of the medium it displaces.  We have Archimedes to thank for that formula. 

I explicitly put "g"'s into the equations to remind me that in denspressure we are dealing with mass not weight.   We have no gravity remember.

I'm not prepared to make a call on denspressure just yet,  it may or may not be a self consistent view of some world or other,  but probably not reflecting objective reality.   

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 05, 2016, 07:18:05 PM
If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

It's fair to say that the experiments aren't conclusive, there's always room for something to not be taken account or for something to be overlooked, or indeed for simple experimental error, but the latter can be corrected for and there would need to be some example for the former.
As it does seem as though the presence of air inside an object (whether a balloon or tank) does increase its weight, then there would need to be an explanation.

It could be human error, but repetition makes that seem unlikely (as does the correction for water weight). So we're left with the option of finding the explanation. Assuming that the inside of a balloon is not independent from the external stacks (as seems reasonable), then perhaps the heightened pressure (compressed molecules trying to expand) on the inside acts through the balloon and creates extra force?
That's the main recourse I can see, and would apply to both the balloon and compressed air cases, and does seem in line with my understanding of denpressure, though I admit that's incomplete.
As it is, you're the only one with a more intuitive understanding of denpressure. I typically just think in terms of inverse buoyancy, which definitely does away with my initial objections, but that alone isn't enough in this case as we're on new ground: higher concentrations of displaced air.

(If, alternatively, you want to move on, just say, there's probably not much more discussion that can be had on this exact topic if you don't want to linger, and I know i'm definitely tired of seeing REers ganging up).

Inconclusive? That's simply not true. Through scientific rigor I have conclusively proven that if you submerge a 3 pound piece of steel for 24 hours then you can't get your 10 bucks back from the Home Depot because the damn thing has started to rust already.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 05, 2016, 08:00:06 PM
Alright. Hard day of sciencing done. Time to get drunk and do yard work.

I'll agree to half of what you said,  you guess which half.

The question I have,  is denspressure a self consistent system?..   let's forget experiments for a minute and consider denspressure in it's abstract form,  what are the equations that govern what we measure as weight.   In conventional physics it's -mg,   what's the equivalent in denspressure?   

Following Jane's lead and suggesting it's inverse buoyancy,  then the only factors we need to consider are the density of the surrounding medium and the density of the object itself,  so let's assume an object of volume Vo and a density of  Md for the medium and Od for the object,  now the missing link,  what is the origin of the downwards force?  That's where pressure enters the equation,  but I'm unclear on what form the maths should take, 

In conventional physics it's simply the weight of the medium displaced,  which in this case the force would be Fobject = -g Vo*Md  In words, the force is equal to the volume of the object times the density of the medium it displaces.  We have Archimedes to thank for that formula. 

I explicitly put "g"'s into the equations to remind me that in denspressure we are dealing with mass not weight.   We have no gravity remember.

I'm not prepared to make a call on denspressure just yet,  it may or may not be a self consistent view of some world or other,  but probably not reflecting objective reality.

The thing is, and I could be wrong on this, is that buoyancy only attempts to get in your way when you're moving.  A fluid or air medium is almost a distraction when you're researching an attractive force. 

When I heard about this theory the first thing that came to mind is sticking a scale and a weight in a vacuum chamber, decreasing the pressure by one half and see if there's any weight change.  Which is what happens by the way, but I'm sure you already knew that.  Kind of wish I took pictures of that. I'm not going to get access to that vacuum chamber for a while.

This might be a failure of my imagination but about the closest thing I can think of that would make this work is if there's a hard dome over the planet and air molecules are connected enough that they would act really long springs pressing down on us while they're pressing against the dome.  But that's trivially easy to disprove, just go indoors and see if you achieve 0g.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 05, 2016, 08:09:25 PM
Alright. Hard day of sciencing done. Time to get drunk and do yard work.

I'll agree to half of what you said,  you guess which half.

The question I have,  is denspressure a self consistent system?..   let's forget experiments for a minute and consider denspressure in it's abstract form,  what are the equations that govern what we measure as weight.   In conventional physics it's -mg,   what's the equivalent in denspressure?   

Following Jane's lead and suggesting it's inverse buoyancy,  then the only factors we need to consider are the density of the surrounding medium and the density of the object itself,  so let's assume an object of volume Vo and a density of  Md for the medium and Od for the object,  now the missing link,  what is the origin of the downwards force?  That's where pressure enters the equation,  but I'm unclear on what form the maths should take, 

In conventional physics it's simply the weight of the medium displaced,  which in this case the force would be Fobject = -g Vo*Md  In words, the force is equal to the volume of the object times the density of the medium it displaces.  We have Archimedes to thank for that formula. 

I explicitly put "g"'s into the equations to remind me that in denspressure we are dealing with mass not weight.   We have no gravity remember.

I'm not prepared to make a call on denspressure just yet,  it may or may not be a self consistent view of some world or other,  but probably not reflecting objective reality.

The thing is, and I could be wrong on this, is that buoyancy only attempts to get in your way when you're moving.  A fluid or air medium is almost a distraction when you're researching an attractive force. 

When I heard about this theory the first thing that came to mind is sticking a scale and a weight in a vacuum chamber, decreasing the pressure by one half and see if there's any weight change.  Which is what happens by the way, but I'm sure you already knew that.  Kind of wish I took pictures of that. I'm not going to get access to that vacuum chamber for a while.

This might be a failure of my imagination but about the closest thing I can think of that would make this work is if there's a hard dome over the planet and air molecules are connected enough that they would act really long springs pressing down on us while they're pressing against the dome.  But that's trivially easy to disprove, just go indoors and see if you achieve 0g.

Sokarul already did the weight in a vacuum chamber experiment,  and scepti disputed the method,  claiming that the scales themselves were affected by the reduced pressure,  so any weighing in a vacuum experiment needs to somehow have the measuring apparatus at normal pressure.  I was thinking of a beam balance with half inside the vacuum chamber and half outside. 

I think these experiments are more and more about delusional psychology and less and less about real world physics.   Show me the equations, then we will see.

PV=nRT   is hard to beat.

One other prediction of denspressure is that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects.  The old Aristotle vs Galileo argument that was won by Galileo hundreds of years ago. :)
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 05, 2016, 11:18:30 PM

Sokarul already did the weight in a vacuum chamber experiment,  and scepti disputed the method,  claiming that the scales themselves were affected by the reduced pressure,  so any weighing in a vacuum experiment needs to somehow have the measuring apparatus at normal pressure.  I was thinking of a beam balance with half inside the vacuum chamber and half outside. 


I... am going to have to wrap my head around that one for a while.  I'm pretty sure it's wrongheaded, I'm just not sure how yet.


I think these experiments are more and more about delusional psychology and less and less about real world physics.   Show me the equations, then we will see.


And there it is, the appeal of this site to me.  Most people who encounter lunatics wonder how to change their minds.  This is a good question but I ponder a more important one; How do I know I'm not the lunatic?  Is there a logical proof for that?  Is it even possible to recognize when I'm being unreasonable?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:13:31 AM
Jane's the closest to understanding the gist of this. Some of you are teetering on the edge but just can't see past the simplicity.

Let's use what Rabinoz said about buoyancy. This gets mistaken for the use of gravity. In fact it's a classic con of gravity but actually proves denpressure.

Water is the key issue to knowing what atmospheric pressure is doing pressing down on anything pushing into it, because water is displaced by the atmospheric pressure acting upon any object, where an equal amount of water is displaced as the actual man made measurement of the object.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 01:22:46 AM
Sceptimatic could you answer a question about denpressure for me? You still haven't answered it. Why can we measure exponential drop-off of air pressure as we increase altitude? Basic physics will tell you that, in an enclosed space, absent any other force, gas particles will achieve equilibrium pressure throughout the container. In reality, we can plainly see that some force is pushing a greater concentration of air particles toward the earth's surface. Would you care to explain this? Is there some flaw with my reasoning or the principles I have addressed?

EDIT: fixing typos
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 06, 2016, 01:54:57 AM
Jane's the closest to understanding the gist of this. Some of you are teetering on the edge but just can't see past the simplicity.

Let's use what Rabinoz said about buoyancy. This gets mistaken for the use of gravity. In fact it's a classic con of gravity but actually proves denpressure.

Water is the key issue to knowing what atmospheric pressure is doing pressing down on anything pushing into it, because water is displaced by the atmospheric pressure acting upon any object, where an equal amount of water is displaced as the actual man made measurement of the object.
We are still waiting for details of how the weight of an object varies with atmospheric pressure over the course of time, with some typical values.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 02:00:32 AM
Sceptimatic could you answer a question about denpressure for me? You still haven't answered it. Why can we measure anot exponential drop-off of air pressure as we increase altitude. Basic physics will tell you that, in an enclosed space, absent any other force, gas particles will achieve equilibrium pressure throughout the container. In reality, we can plainly see that some force is pushing a greater concentration of air particles toward the earth's surface. Would you care to explain this? Is there some flaw with my reasoning or the principles I have addressed?
It's  not as if I haven't explained but I'll give it another shot.

First of all I'll deal with your container and when I do, please understand what I'm trying to tell you.
In your pressurised container - yes, there is as near equilibrium of pressure when you consider a sphere shaped container to save argument.
If I was to put you inside that container and then start to pressurise it, you are going to be crushed to pulp in short order because the sphere already contained around 14.7 psi before pressurisation commenced, due to the atmosphere external to it becoming part of it.

On the flattish Earth with the dome, we have half of that sphere. We essentially have the widest area at the bottom and a build up that moves inwards as the dome forms, until it reached the top, where the matter is the most expanded and taking up the lesser space.

Now we get into vibration by energy, as you know as well as I know that matter is always vibrating in many trillions of frequencies all over the Earth.

Anyway, imagine the Earth as flattish with the dome and picture an empty snow globe. Fill it with as many different dense grains as you can find. Sand, salt, talcum powder or whatever until you fill the snow globe.
Now get an electric orbital sander (without the sanding sheet) and turn it upside down and hold your snow globe on it for a while and watch the particles take their form in a sandwich of different densities.

The densest will be at the bottom and the less dense or largest will be sat at the top.
Why?

The reason is because the more there is of something the smaller they become and the more densely packed they become, meaning anything pushed into them by action/energy, will be crushed/squeezed up.
That's what's happening to us except we are a massive dense unit and we always use energy to PUSH into the atmospheric squeeze until we have no more energy to do that. Basically we stop growing.
The thing is, the atmosphere is trying to crush us but we fight back against it by pushing it away with our dense mass.


I've made a story here ;D but I find that explaining stuff like this will eventually light the bulb and I'm willing to keep explaining for anyone willing to take the time to grasp instead of spending their time simply waiting to ridicule. Not that you are yet - but you get my gist.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 02:04:34 AM
Jane's the closest to understanding the gist of this. Some of you are teetering on the edge but just can't see past the simplicity.

Let's use what Rabinoz said about buoyancy. This gets mistaken for the use of gravity. In fact it's a classic con of gravity but actually proves denpressure.

Water is the key issue to knowing what atmospheric pressure is doing pressing down on anything pushing into it, because water is displaced by the atmospheric pressure acting upon any object, where an equal amount of water is displaced as the actual man made measurement of the object.
We are still waiting for details of how the weight of an object varies with atmospheric pressure over the course of time, with some typical values.
  Isn't it you people that that push the gold weight carry on in different climates, telling us gold weighs more in some places than others?

Correct me if I'm wrong?

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 06, 2016, 02:26:42 AM
Jane's the closest to understanding the gist of this. Some of you are teetering on the edge but just can't see past the simplicity.

Let's use what Rabinoz said about buoyancy. This gets mistaken for the use of gravity. In fact it's a classic con of gravity but actually proves denpressure.

Water is the key issue to knowing what atmospheric pressure is doing pressing down on anything pushing into it, because water is displaced by the atmospheric pressure acting upon any object, where an equal amount of water is displaced as the actual man made measurement of the object.
We are still waiting for details of how the weight of an object varies with atmospheric pressure over the course of time, with some typical values.
  Isn't it you people that that push the gold weight carry on in different climates, telling us gold weighs more in some places than others?

Correct me if I'm wrong?
I am not 'one' of those people.  Please answer the question.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 06, 2016, 02:38:57 AM
I tried to stick with this thread as long as I could, but enough is enough. if the dateline was AD1400 this would still be a silly thread but in AD 2016 it is an exercise in idiocy and EASILY debunked. You cannot simply say that a vacuum does not exist and we cannot create simply because it would debunk this theory.  Nor can you say that the bulk of science is not verifiable and repeatable - because it is.

I know some of you are trying to be nice to this guy, but it is a fools errand. nothing you can say or do will ever make any dent because quite simply, he lacks the intellectual ability, the education or frankly, the mental stability to comprehend anything he does not understand. IN his mind, delusion is fact, because he can think it. Imagination is reality and nobody else can possibly understand his higher plane of thinking.

In professional terms, it is called Schizophrenia matched with a really poor education and an even poorer basic intellect.

harsh, but true.

Try talking about subatomic particles and the like. He cannot even understand something so basic that it can be debunked by a child, a pre-schooler, while asleep.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 02:45:06 AM
I tried to stick with this thread as long as I could, but enough is enough. if the dateline was AD1400 this would still be a silly thread but in AD 2016 it is an exercise in idiocy and EASILY debunked. You cannot simply say that a vacuum does not exist and we cannot create simply because it would debunk this theory.  Nor can you say that the bulk of science is not verifiable and repeatable - because it is.

I know some of you are trying to be nice to this guy, but it is a fools errand. nothing you can say or do will ever make any dent because quite simply, he lacks the intellectual ability, the education or frankly, the mental stability to comprehend anything he does not understand. IN his mind, delusion is fact, because he can think it. Imagination is reality and nobody else can possibly understand his higher plane of thinking.

In professional terms, it is called Schizophrenia matched with a really poor education and an even poorer basic intellect.

harsh, but true.

Try talking about subatomic particles and the like. He cannot even understand something so basic that it can be debunked by a child, a pre-schooler, while asleep.
The only shock with this post is the time it's took to come. I was waiting for the new entry (you) pretender to come in with a nice attempt at ridicule. It's part and parcel of how you people work.

I'll continue to deal with you people how I see fit.  ;D
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 02:56:49 AM
Sceptimatic, thank you for taking the time to explain your views. You and I are two sides of the same coin, each of us trying to enlighten the world with the power of friendly debate.

First of all I'll deal with your container and when I do, please understand what I'm trying to tell you.
In your pressurised container - yes, there is as near equilibrium of pressure when you consider a sphere shaped container to save argument.

No disagreement here, although the difference in equilibrium between a sphere shaped container and a hemisphere would be negligable.

We essentially have the widest area at the bottom and a build up that moves inwards as the dome forms, until it reached the top, where the matter is the most expanded and taking up the lesser space.

You have already forgotten one of the basic principles of gasses: in ANY closed container (regardless of shape), gasses will remain at equilibrium barring any outside force. This means the gasses in your dome model should expand outwards in all directions until they are halted by the firmament. There is no reason why the top of the dome would experience less pressure from any other part of the container. Already in your explanation you are describing air particles being drawn downward by an outside force (gravity).

The rest of your post was simply an explanation of density, and has nothing to do with my question about equilibrium. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, I made density towers in middle school.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 06, 2016, 03:03:23 AM
I tried to stick with this thread as long as I could, but enough is enough. if the dateline was AD1400 this would still be a silly thread but in AD 2016 it is an exercise in idiocy and EASILY debunked. You cannot simply say that a vacuum does not exist and we cannot create simply because it would debunk this theory.  Nor can you say that the bulk of science is not verifiable and repeatable - because it is.

I know some of you are trying to be nice to this guy, but it is a fools errand. nothing you can say or do will ever make any dent because quite simply, he lacks the intellectual ability, the education or frankly, the mental stability to comprehend anything he does not understand. IN his mind, delusion is fact, because he can think it. Imagination is reality and nobody else can possibly understand his higher plane of thinking.

In professional terms, it is called Schizophrenia matched with a really poor education and an even poorer basic intellect.

harsh, but true.

Try talking about subatomic particles and the like. He cannot even understand something so basic that it can be debunked by a child, a pre-schooler, while asleep.
The only shock with this post is the time it's took to come. I was waiting for the new entry (you) pretender to come in with a nice attempt at ridicule. It's part and parcel of how you people work.

I'll continue to deal with you people how I see fit.  ;D

No scepti, you are the problem. ANY conclusion or experiment that debunks your position you instantly denounce using any of your standard methods. Quite simply, you are UNTEACHABLE and therefor the antithesis of a scientist. A true scientist learns more from failed experiments that successful ones. You on the other hand learn nothing from any experiment whatsoever.

Your claim that you cannot have a vacuum or even a partial vaccuum is beyond ludicrous if only because of the existence of... VACUUM cleaners. If denpressure had anything accurate about it, its predictions would be consistent and repeatable. So far, not a single aspect of denpressure is provable or repeatable. IN fact, every element of it is easily disproven. The mere existence of difference airpressures as altitude exists debunks it primary claim. And as for the non-existence of gravity... doesnt denpressure fail in every single regard in that matter?  What exactly causes the orbits of the planets in our solar system or the structure of galaxies or anything else in the entire universe?

And this might sound like prying, but would you tell us how much education you have particularly in maths and science - assuming any?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 03:33:13 AM
You have already forgotten one of the basic principles of gasses: in ANY closed container (regardless of shape), gasses will remain at equilibrium barring any outside force.
Yes, if we do the experiments down at the bottom of the atmosphere where we are under highest atmopsheric pressure at sea level.
The thing is we are not stacking gases into the container, we are compressing them into a basic equilibrium of pressure when sealed inside.

The dome works on a stacked method but we are at the bottom of the stack.


This means the gasses in your dome model should expand outwards in all directions until they are halted by the firmament.
They are not halted by the firmament, they becomes the dome itself against what we could imagine is a true vacuum beyond.
When I say imagine, I mean it literally because a true vacuum is a none existence of all matter. A nothing.



There is no reason why the top of the dome would experience less pressure from any other part of the container.
The top the dome would be the part against a true vacuum. Where's the pressure coming from?


Already in your explanation you are describing air particles being drawn downward by an outside force (gravity).
No. You are trying to tell me that I am. I'm telling you about denpressure and the stacking of atmosphere.

The rest of your post was simply an explanation of density, and has nothing to do with my question about equilibrium. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, I made density towers in middle school.
Building towers at school and being told about gravity and a globe Earth at school is all well and good. It's no more than a story of fiction as far as I'm concerned.
I'm telling you about denpressure because it's real and gravity is not. Gravity is a fantasy as far as I'm concerned but I'm trying to help people understand denpressure by using the most basic talk and analogies I can muster.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 06, 2016, 05:02:42 AM
Jane's the closest to understanding the gist of this. Some of you are teetering on the edge but just can't see past the simplicity.

Let's use what Rabinoz said about buoyancy. This gets mistaken for the use of gravity. In fact it's a classic con of gravity but actually proves denpressure.

Water is the key issue to knowing what atmospheric pressure is doing pressing down on anything pushing into it, because water is displaced by the atmospheric pressure acting upon any object, where an equal amount of water is displaced as the actual man made measurement of the object.
We are still waiting for details of how the weight of an object varies with atmospheric pressure over the course of time, with some typical values.
  Isn't it you people that that push the gold weight carry on in different climates, telling us gold weighs more in some places than others?

Correct me if I'm wrong?
I am not 'one' of those people.  Please answer the question.
Still no reply to this basic question.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 06, 2016, 05:06:12 AM
One thing that interests me: how does denpressure act underwater?
Certainly there is air in water, but it doesn't seem to permeate in quite the same way. It's easy to tell that it would take some force for air to be pushed down to the bottom of any chamber of water (just blow on a cup for an easy test). If it just seeps through, though, how would it interact with the natural buoyancy of water?
For example, something I remember doing in a swimming pool countless times, there are a lot of objects you can push underwater and find that they don't sink or rise. There are also objects that float, and if you push them under they force their way back to the top. That's easy to understand in terms of buoyancy.
But what about the objects that sink? How would denpressure act on them when underwater? Whatever air molecules are there are all mixed in with the molecules of the water, so displacing one would displace the other. At any stage, the object's displacing a lot of molecules, but it's entering into the pool from the top so it ought to be pushed back up by the water.

The two solutions I can see, that don't seem to work, are:
The water and air displacement forces acting inside a body of water are opposed. Air is still being displaced ground-up so it pushes down, water is being displaced top-down so it pushes up. My issue here is that surely the water and air would act on each other, in this case, evening out the direction of force? (And there might be issues in terms of heavier objects sinking when the water-force ought to be stronger as they displace more, but I could be wrong).
The second option would be that an object that sinks does so because it was in the air, and didn't lose the impact of that force, so it was pushed down to the bottom and the water couldn't immediately act to push it back up (and, once in the water, the water acts on the pores to reduce the displacement and so reduce the upwards force). Presumably though that wouldn't last forever, and eventually the downwards force would be worn away by the upwards, and it'd float, which doesn't seem to match what we see.

The first option seems more likely, but I can't quite see how it would work. There might be an interesting test in terms of water-behaviour though.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Charming Anarchist on August 06, 2016, 07:16:04 AM
One thing that interests me: how does denpressure act underwater?
Denpressure acts the same. 
You have to start looking at "water" as being dense vapor and "air" as being loose liquid. 


There is no reason why the top of the dome would experience less pressure from any other part of the container.
The top the dome would be the part against a true vacuum. Where's the pressure coming from?
My caveman brain tells me that the pressure comes from within. 

If folks focus on our world being a dynamic cell or a bubble, erasing the illusion of "gravity" is a simple task. 
When a bubble expands, what expands the most? ANSWER: the base. 
Why does expansion happen the most?  ANSWER: there lies the most pressure!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 06, 2016, 08:32:28 AM
One thing that interests me: how does denpressure act underwater?
Denpressure acts the same. 
You have to start looking at "water" as being dense vapor and "air" as being loose liquid. 
I did: but even allowing for air to stack through water (which doesn't entirely make sense down to surface tension, which admittedly might just be part of the typical model that doesn't transfer, and how we can direct air at water and see water part) you're left essentially with competing buoyancy and no obvious reason for things to sink/float on any grounds beyond surface area.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Charming Anarchist on August 06, 2016, 08:39:58 AM
You have to step away from the air/liquid/solid trichotomy. 

you're left essentially with competing buoyancy and no obvious reason for things to sink/float on any grounds beyond surface area.
That is why I believe the core of what we experience has more to do with vibrational energy ---- not "air" pressure. 
Air "pressure" is a result of the vibrational energy acting upon air. 

What you experience underwater is a consequence of vibrational energy acting upon the water (super-dense vapor) that surrounds you. 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 08:41:20 AM
One thing that interests me: how does denpressure act underwater?
Certainly there is air in water, but it doesn't seem to permeate in quite the same way. It's easy to tell that it would take some force for air to be pushed down to the bottom of any chamber of water (just blow on a cup for an easy test). If it just seeps through, though, how would it interact with the natural buoyancy of water?
What we have to remember is the objects ability to completely trap atmosphere as well as simply absorbing it. This defines how it works in water.
It's always high and low pressures and if an object has low pressure trapped in it, it will be SQUEEZED down but if it has high pressure of TRAPPED atmosphere, it will be squeezed up.

There's two things going on in objects. One is initial absorption of atmosphere and the other is the trapped atmosphere within that only energy applied at depth could release it from, or heating and super cooling.




For example, something I remember doing in a swimming pool countless times, there are a lot of objects you can push underwater and find that they don't sink or rise. There are also objects that float, and if you push them under they force their way back to the top. That's easy to understand in terms of buoyancy.
But what about the objects that sink? How would denpressure act on them when underwater?
By slowly trying to squeeze. You see the water is in direct resistance with the atmosphere above it, because water is simply just super small atmospheric molecules, but top us they're dense enough to be liquid due to its own stack from the bottom up against the atmospheric stack from the top of the water to the top of the sky.

Basically the object sinking is being squeezed but you can't see that initially, just as you can't see a heated train wheel expanding by heat to fit a cold inner hub, but you know it's happening when you see it fit on easily and then cooled off to be as tight as a weld.





Whatever air molecules are there are all mixed in with the molecules of the water, so displacing one would displace the other. At any stage, the object's displacing a lot of molecules, but it's entering into the pool from the top so it ought to be pushed back up by the water.
There's a few things going on. One is the squeeze of the water that releases some atmospheric molecules, making it smaller as well as temperature change as the object is squeezed.

The two solutions I can see, that don't seem to work, are:
The water and air displacement forces acting inside a body of water are opposed. Air is still being displaced ground-up so it pushes down, water is being displaced top-down so it pushes up. My issue here is that surely the water and air would act on each other, in this case, evening out the direction of force? (And there might be issues in terms of heavier objects sinking when the water-force ought to be stronger as they displace more, but I could be wrong).

Hopefully I've gave you food for thought but if not, come back at me and I'll try again.

The second option would be that an object that sinks does so because it was in the air, and didn't lose the impact of that force, so it was pushed down to the bottom and the water couldn't immediately act to push it back up (and, once in the water, the water acts on the pores to reduce the displacement and so reduce the upwards force). Presumably though that wouldn't last forever, and eventually the downwards force would be worn away by the upwards, and it'd float, which doesn't seem to match what we see.

Imagine putting a block of wood on top of the water. A soft porous wood. At first you see it sitting proudly on top with the majority of it's area protruding from the water.
The water is pushing against the sides of that block and by doing so it's pushing it up, or resisting it, because the atmosphere is doing exactly the same thing to it. It's a game of push of war instead of tug of war.
The water is more dense than atmosphere and we see that by the block only submerged in a minor way.
We know the wood is porous and is full of atmosphere which means that the atmosphere is more pushing through the wood rather than pushing on it by a squeeze DOWN.
All it can do is keep playing push of war until bit by bit the water density is overcome a little, meaning more density of wood to push back against and so on until over time the atmosphere wins by squeezing the wood down into the water and now squeezing or pushing down on the water with the water pushing back to now work of squeezing the trapped molecules, leaving the wood super dense compared to what it was.


The first option seems more likely, but I can't quite see how it would work. There might be an interesting test in terms of water-behaviour though.
Let's see if I've said anything that can peak your interest or (hopefully not) whether I've complicated the issue.

I'm willing to keep trying to make better analogies and what not to keep you on track because I know you're really delving into it and trying to figure it out.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 08:53:33 AM

No scepti, you are the problem. ANY conclusion or experiment that debunks your position you instantly denounce using any of your standard methods. Quite simply, you are UNTEACHABLE and therefor the antithesis of a scientist. A true scientist learns more from failed experiments that successful ones. You on the other hand learn nothing from any experiment whatsoever.
I'm very protective over my theory and it's not going to go away just because you don't understand it, or like it, or oppose it for reasons only known to yourself - or maybe your peers.


Your claim that you cannot have a vacuum or even a partial vaccuum is beyond ludicrous if only because of the existence of... VACUUM cleaners.
Seriously?  ;D



If denpressure had anything accurate about it, its predictions would be consistent and repeatable.
There's always time. It's only been going a short while and I'm getting the logical brains on-board to bounce of each other to get to the crux.
There's a few that are closing in on seeing how it works. Jane and charming anarchist and a few others are edging closer bit by bit.
You're still trying to get out of the blocks.



So far, not a single aspect of denpressure is provable or repeatable. IN fact, every element of it is easily disproven.
And yet you have no clue how it works.



The mere existence of difference airpressures as altitude exists debunks it primary claim.
No it doesn't. It proves you're here to play games.



And as for the non-existence of gravity... doesnt denpressure fail in every single regard in that matter?
If you knew what it was you'd know that gravity is a fantasy.



  What exactly causes the orbits of the planets in our solar system or the structure of galaxies or anything else in the entire universe?
Nothing, because there are no galaxies or planets. It's a lie. It's just another fantasy you've been sold.

And this might sound like prying, but would you tell us how much education you have particularly in maths and science - assuming any?
I'm sure you'll have your own mind on that.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 06, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Ah, ok, thank you.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, when an object meets the water, some might automatically float due to surface area etc. Then those that get pushed under the water are squeezed by the pressure of water, meaning the air trapped within them escapes, and in turn is replaced by the water, meaning it would lose buoyancy (less water would be displaced), and sink as it'd end up denser and would be pushed to the bottom?

If that's right then there might be another experiment, similar to the second one: two objects with equal volume (though not equally porous), with the first being lighter than the second. Then, the first object would be more porous, so if both are submerged for a length of time for all the air to be replaced by water, the lighter object would sink faster if it was brought to the surface again because less water's displaced by it.
I realise it's not a particularly reliable experiment, timing and raising objects to equal heights etc is filled with a wealth of problems as far as reliability goes, just trying to ensure I understand what you're saying.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 06, 2016, 09:11:03 AM
How can planets be a lie?

What's the variation of atmospheric pressure around us?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 06, 2016, 10:09:24 AM
This is for liquid...i have equipment for pressurising gas. I also have a machine that can create a gaseous smoke like dye. If that curbs anyone's creative thought process.

When your vacuum chamber your complete and if you have access to a balance scale this would be an interesting experiment.

Take two objects of different densities. I suggest cork or stryofoam and a piece of lead or steel.  they need to weigh the same.

Place both on the balance scale, evacuate the chamber and see what happens.

Would this be a good test?? ^^^It seems to me it would be. I don't have a balance beam but I imagine it would not be hard to get one. The big chamber is in the process of being dye tested and that takes about a week, so it isn't usable yet. Though I have a 35 gallon vacuum chamber that will pull a decent vacuum nothing like the big boy that is about to be functional, but it can get about 1torr maybe a bit lower. I use it for degassing and other things. I would think this would be enough of a vacuum? If not can wait till the monster is functioning.

To me it would seem this test would be quite conclusive. I don't know what other opinions are
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 06, 2016, 10:35:31 AM
This is for liquid...i have equipment for pressurising gas. I also have a machine that can create a gaseous smoke like dye. If that curbs anyone's creative thought process.

When your vacuum chamber your complete and if you have access to a balance scale this would be an interesting experiment.

Take two objects of different densities. I suggest cork or stryofoam and a piece of lead or steel.  they need to weigh the same.

Place both on the balance scale, evacuate the chamber and see what happens.

Would this be a good test?? ^^^It seems to me it would be. I don't have a balance beam but I imagine it would not be hard to get one. The big chamber is in the process of being dye tested and that takes about a week, so it isn't usable yet. Though I have a 35 gallon vacuum chamber that will pull a decent vacuum nothing like the big boy that is about to be functional, but it can get about 1torr maybe a bit lower. I use it for degassing and other things. I would think this would be enough of a vacuum? If not can wait till the monster is functioning.

To me it would seem this test would be quite conclusive. I don't know what other opinions are

One caveat: don't forget to vacuum seal both items prior to evacuation. Otherwise the low pressure will draw the air, which constitutes part of its weigh, out of the cork.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 06, 2016, 10:48:29 AM
This is for liquid...i have equipment for pressurising gas. I also have a machine that can create a gaseous smoke like dye. If that curbs anyone's creative thought process.

When your vacuum chamber your complete and if you have access to a balance scale this would be an interesting experiment.

Take two objects of different densities. I suggest cork or stryofoam and a piece of lead or steel.  they need to weigh the same.

Place both on the balance scale, evacuate the chamber and see what happens.

Would this be a good test?? ^^^It seems to me it would be. I don't have a balance beam but I imagine it would not be hard to get one. The big chamber is in the process of being dye tested and that takes about a week, so it isn't usable yet. Though I have a 35 gallon vacuum chamber that will pull a decent vacuum nothing like the big boy that is about to be functional, but it can get about 1torr maybe a bit lower. I use it for degassing and other things. I would think this would be enough of a vacuum? If not can wait till the monster is functioning.

To me it would seem this test would be quite conclusive. I don't know what other opinions are

For Scepti probably not.  I do not fully understand his reasoning, but I think only a perfect vacuum will suffice for his model.  In his model there is no empty space and everything expands including atoms to fill any voids. He can correct me if I am wrong.

It does not make sense to me.  Since the decrease in pressure can be measured.  I also do not fully understand his reasoning that the air pressure outside the chamber still somehow effects stuff in the chamber.  My understanding is it should be isolated from the effects of the outside air pressure.

I would have suggested using two digital scales, but scepti's model says those scales cease to function accurately in a vacuum.  That is why I recommended a balance scale.  Which could be as simple as attaching the objects to a stick and balancing it before evacuating the chamber.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 06, 2016, 11:02:25 AM
I do not currently have a vacuum sealing system. If you vacuum seal the items would it be needed to then put them in a vacuum? Seems you could weigh the item before and after less the bags weight?


To woody...

Even at 1 Torr or a bit less like the small chamber can do. That is such a small amount of molecules per cubic foot. However, you are right, I know scepti doesn't like vacuum chambers for whatever reason.

They are one of the easiest things to prove in my eyes. Forget guages, just put a balloon, water, sponge, or god forbid a living creature like a rabbit in there and see what happens. I have done all of these (except the living creature), and then some just playing around during bored time..not to mention all the work purposes I use them for. I have never found a single instance to question them or their function.

I will say I have always wanted to put a cockroach in a glass and see what happens, but even considering what they are I couldn't do it, felt bad. If there was some sort of medical reason maybe, but my own morbid curiosity, I just felt horrible.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 06, 2016, 11:21:12 AM
I do not currently have a vacuum sealing system. If you vacuum seal the items would it be needed to then put them in a vacuum? Seems you could weigh the item before and after less the bags weight?


To woody...

Even at 1 Torr or a bit less like the small chamber can do. That is such a small amount of molecules per cubic foot. However, you are right, I know scepti doesn't like vacuum chambers for whatever reason.

They are one of the easiest things to prove in my eyes. Forget guages, just put a balloon, water, sponge, or god forbid a living creature like a rabbit in there and see what happens. I have done all of these (except the living creature), and then some just playing around during bored time..not to mention all the work purposes I use them for. I have never found a single instance to question them or their function.

I will say I have always wanted to put a cockroach in a glass and see what happens, but even considering what they are I couldn't do it, felt bad. If there was some sort of medical reason maybe, but my own morbid curiosity, I just felt horrible.

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 11:33:43 AM
Yes, if we do the experiments down at the bottom of the atmosphere where we are under highest atmopsheric pressure at sea level.
Not quite. Gasses achieve equilibrium in any enclosed space. This has been incontrovertibly proven at all levels of altitude. This is because air, being a gas, will expand and form the shape of any container it is placed in. Note that when I say "expand" the actual size of the particles themselves remains constant, the parties just spread out more. In the FE model, gasses are kept in the system by the firmament,  thus creating a closed system. Since there is no other force acting on the atmosphere in the FE model, the gasses should expand to fill the enclosed space.

They are not halted by the firmament, they becomes the dome itself against what we could imagine is a true vacuum beyond.
When I say imagine, I mean it literally because a true vacuum is a none existence of all matter. A nothing.
Yes thank you for the textbook definition of vacuum, I'm glad you understand the concept. You are now telling me that a perfect vacuum (i.e. literally nothing) is somehow stopping all the billions of litres of gas in the atmosphere from diffusing into the vacuum? I am sure you are familiar with the concept, "Nature abhors a vacuum"

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: You place a water balloon on a table. The water within is a pressurized system, kept under pressure by the walls of the balloon. Against the table, the water forms a flat surface which arcs upwards in a very rough model of the Flat Earth model. Remove the physical restraint of the water balloon (or firmament) and the water spills all over the table. This is because fluids move from high pressure systems to low pressure systems. Explain to me why the pressurized atmosphere does not completely diffuse into the zero pressure vacuum if nothing is physically holding it to the earth?


The top the dome would be the part against a true vacuum. Where's the pressure coming from?
Again, why doesn't the gas on the edge of the dome simply diffuse into outer space?

Already in your explanation you are describing air particles being drawn downward by an outside force (gravity).
No. You are trying to tell me that I am. I'm telling you about denpressure and the stacking of atmosphere.
I am trying to tell you that gasses don't act in this way. They do not "stack" in the way you are describing, and I do not know why you keep parroting this term. Gasses are in constant flux, perpetually seeking equilibrium, moving from high pressure to low pressure.

 
Being told about gravity and a globe Earth at school is all well and good. It's no more than a story of fiction as far as I'm concerned.
I'm telling you about denpressure because it's real and gravity is not. Gravity is a fantasy as far as I'm concerned but I'm trying to help people understand denpressure by using the most basic talk and analogies I can muster.

It doesn't really seem like you have an open mind. You rejected all of the experimental findings in this thread, without offering a single thought as to what those findings could mean. You subscribe to a theory that ignores the most basic principles of fluid dynamics. You tout this theory as absolute proof, when you don't actually have any proof. You can play mind games all you like but if you want to call denpressure a scientifically sound theory able to compete with the predictability and measurability of gravitation, you are actually going to have to get out of your mum's basement and do some science yourself.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 12:44:24 PM
Ah, ok, thank you.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, when an object meets the water, some might automatically float due to surface area etc.
No it's not just down to surface area. It must contain atmospheric pressure.




Then those that get pushed under the water are squeezed by the pressure of water, meaning the air trapped within them escapes, and in turn is replaced by the water, meaning it would lose buoyancy (less water would be displaced), and sink as it'd end up denser and would be pushed to the bottom?
Squeezed to the bottom but essentially, yes.
If that's right then there might be another experiment, similar to the second one: two objects with equal volume (though not equally porous), with the first being lighter than the second. Then, the first object would be more porous, so if both are submerged for a length of time for all the air to be replaced by water, the lighter object would sink faster if it was brought to the surface again because less water's displaced by it.
I realise it's not a particularly reliable experiment, timing and raising objects to equal heights etc is filled with a wealth of problems as far as reliability goes, just trying to ensure I understand what you're saying.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Maybe I'm having a moment.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 06, 2016, 01:01:05 PM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 01:20:03 PM

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Always, ALWAYS pull out in space.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM
Not quite. Gasses achieve equilibrium in any enclosed space. This has been incontrovertibly proven at all levels of altitude.
Is the atmosphere the same at the top of a high mountain as it is at the bottom?
If not, there goes your equilibrium. It's stacked.


This is because air, being a gas, will expand and form the shape of any container it is placed in.
Yep, in a container it will.



Note that when I say "expand" the actual size of the particles themselves remains constant, the parties just spread out more.
When you say they spread out more, do you mean they expand or do you mean they simply spread out and leave free space?


In the FE model, gasses are kept in the system by the firmament,  thus creating a closed system. Since there is no other force acting on the atmosphere in the FE model, the gasses should expand to fill the enclosed space.
The gases aren't kept in the system by the firmament. The gases simply stop being pushed/squeezed up and simply freeze against a (possibly) a true vacuum.


Yes thank you for the textbook definition of vacuum, I'm glad you understand the concept. You are now telling me that a perfect vacuum (i.e. literally nothing) is somehow stopping all the billions of litres of gas in the atmosphere from diffusing into the vacuum?
nope.

I am sure you are familiar with the concept, "Nature abhors a vacuum"
Yep and in nature there isn't a vacuum, because a vacuum does not and cannot exist to our perception. It can to our imagination.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: You place a water balloon on a table. The water within is a pressurized system, kept under pressure by the walls of the balloon.

Kept under pressure by atmospheric pressure upon the walls of the balloon.


Against the table, the water forms a flat surface which arcs upwards in a very rough model of the Flat Earth model. Remove the physical restraint of the water balloon (or firmament) and the water spills all over the table. This is because fluids move from high pressure systems to low pressure systems.
You are still working under pressure of atmosphere. You're trying to use a balloon analogy to replicate a dome. It's not how it works.


Explain to me why the pressurized atmosphere does not completely diffuse into the zero pressure vacuum if nothing is physically holding it to the earth?
Because it's stacked from the bottom up.


Again, why doesn't the gas on the edge of the dome simply diffuse into outer space?
Because it's stacked from the bottom up and expands till it cannot agitate. IIt then goes dormant and forms the skin. The ice dome.


I am trying to tell you that gasses don't act in this way. They do not "stack" in the way you are describing, and I do not know why you keep parroting this term.
They do stack in the way I'm describing.


Gasses are in constant flux, perpetually seeking equilibrium, moving from high pressure to low pressure.
Yep and that's what's happening from bottom to top but it depends on energy applied to make this happen. That's where the Earth sun comes in.

It doesn't really seem like you have an open mind. You rejected all of the experimental findings in this thread, without offering a single thought as to what those findings could mean.
I'm taking on-board everything that's being said. I am not just going to jump in and accept them as being correct if they do not show a true reflection.
It appears to me that your goal is to smash this theory rather than try and understand it to get it to a favourable position.



You subscribe to a theory that ignores the most basic principles of fluid dynamics.
And what's that?


You tout this theory as absolute proof, when you don't actually have any proof. You can play mind games all you like but if you want to call denpressure a scientifically sound theory able to compete with the predictability and measurability of gravitation, you are actually going to have to get out of your mum's basement and do some science yourself.
If you don't think I have anything to go on then feel free to get on with other things. You're entitled to do and think what you want to but it appears that we won't be making any more in-roads.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 06, 2016, 01:32:26 PM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Drats. Well there goes my plan to flash the other astronauts if I ever go on a space walk.

What about an empty soda bottle? Glass or plastic. Would one of those be tough enough?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 06, 2016, 01:46:01 PM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Drats. Well there goes my plan to flash the other astronauts if I ever go on a space walk.

What about an empty soda bottle? Glass or plastic. Would one of those be tough enough?

Glass can be made strong enough, though a glass soda bottle would not make it. Plastic, no the cap is the weak link (proven through drunken experiment lol).

You have a result in your head...what was the premise of filling the condom with water? I am a little lost of what you were wanting to test here. If I can get it in my head, maybe we can figure out a reasonable test.

I also have an extra pump and small 12 gallon vacuum i can donate for a while if you want to attempt your own tests. If you have an extra super accurate scale I surely would not be opposed to a temporary trade of such.

I will also warn, alcohol and experiments in a vacuum go hand in hand and never get boring lol. Actually most of the machinery I have can do that, but most require too much dexterity or become a safety hazard when impaired. I worry about myself when the big vacuum that is about to be operational, opens a whole new world stupid lol
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 06, 2016, 02:31:35 PM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Drats. Well there goes my plan to flash the other astronauts if I ever go on a space walk.

What about an empty soda bottle? Glass or plastic. Would one of those be tough enough?

Glass can be made strong enough, though a glass soda bottle would not make it. Plastic, no the cap is the weak link (proven through drunken experiment lol).

You have a result in your head...what was the premise of filling the condom with water? I am a little lost of what you were wanting to test here. If I can get it in my head, maybe we can figure out a reasonable test.

I also have an extra pump and small 12 gallon vacuum i can donate for a while if you want to attempt your own tests. If you have an extra super accurate scale I surely would not be opposed to a temporary trade of such.

I will also warn, alcohol and experiments in a vacuum go hand in hand and never get boring lol. Actually most of the machinery I have can do that, but most require too much dexterity or become a safety hazard when impaired. I worry about myself when the big vacuum that is about to be operational, opens a whole new world stupid lol

I caught the tail end of a back and forth on this thread about weighing objects in a vacuum. I probably should have read it a little better. The gist of it is, I think, weighing something in a vacuum is the best way to test denpressure except that sceppy doesn't believe scales are reliable in a vacuum. Someone proposed balancing two objects in a vacuum, one of them cork and the other metal. My issue with that is that air makes up part of the weight of cork and in a vacuum that air is drawn out which would skew the results.  Which is where the condom comes in because it's air tight except for possibly where the knot at the opening would be. Which is why I suggested filling it partway with water as a way of detecting any possible leak.

But that's a dead end since, as you've pointed out it'll explode in a vacuum.

Really I'm just trying to figure out a way to measure weight in a vacuum in a way that scepti won't object to. But since his objections to just sticking a kitchen scale in a vacuum chamber don't make any damn sense it's proving to be a bit of a challenge.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 06, 2016, 02:38:51 PM
I'm with Bill Nye on this one. You want to think that you are formulating an alternative theory to that of gravity byt the basic failing is that you need to denounce and ignore 2500 years of science to do so. in 500BC this theory could gain some credence because we couldnt measure pressure, weigh things very accurately nor ddid we have much of a model of the physical universe. But today, you are asking that we throw literally everything we know and can prove away simply to entertain this rubbish idea of yours?  In your febrile mind, there are no planets, no galaxies, no space travel, no vacuum and every single bit of evidence that contradicts you is garbage or faked. There are cave men that would mock your 'thinking' here.  your theory does not match any of our real-world experiences and is so easily debunked that it is childs-play.

Your understanding of molecules and rejection of the atomic structure leads me to ask: how many elements do you think exists? My guess is four - fire, air, water and air.

I am a bible-believing, active Christian and former missionary and youth pastor. You are an embarrassment to all of us who call Christ our Saviour. You are deeply and sadly deluded.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 06, 2016, 02:41:23 PM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Drats. Well there goes my plan to flash the other astronauts if I ever go on a space walk.

What about an empty soda bottle? Glass or plastic. Would one of those be tough enough?

Glass can be made strong enough, though a glass soda bottle would not make it. Plastic, no the cap is the weak link (proven through drunken experiment lol).

You have a result in your head...what was the premise of filling the condom with water? I am a little lost of what you were wanting to test here. If I can get it in my head, maybe we can figure out a reasonable test.

I also have an extra pump and small 12 gallon vacuum i can donate for a while if you want to attempt your own tests. If you have an extra super accurate scale I surely would not be opposed to a temporary trade of such.

I will also warn, alcohol and experiments in a vacuum go hand in hand and never get boring lol. Actually most of the machinery I have can do that, but most require too much dexterity or become a safety hazard when impaired. I worry about myself when the big vacuum that is about to be operational, opens a whole new world stupid lol

I caught the tail end of a back and forth on this thread about weighing objects in a vacuum. I probably should have read it a little better. The gist of it is, I think, weighing something in a vacuum is the best way to test denpressure except that sceppy doesn't believe scales are reliable in a vacuum. Someone proposed balancing two objects in a vacuum, one of them cork and the other metal. My issue with that is that air makes up part of the weight of cork and in a vacuum that air is drawn out which would skew the results.  Which is where the condom comes in because it's air tight except for possibly where the knot at the opening would be. Which is why I suggested filling it partway with water as a way of detecting any possible leak.

But that's a dead end since, as you've pointed out it'll explode in a vacuum.

Really I'm just trying to figure out a way to measure weight in a vacuum in a way that scepti won't object to. But since his objections to just sticking a kitchen scale in a vacuum chamber don't make any damn sense it's proving to be a bit of a challenge.

Isnt the real problem that he objects to anything and everything that might in any way disprove his nonsense? This is the fundamental problem with his approach to experimentation - that he rejects any outcome not to his liking and then fabricates a ludicrous reason for it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 06, 2016, 03:20:23 PM
No it's not just down to surface area. It must contain atmospheric pressure.
I didn't mean just surface area, but presumably that is a factor as well?
Just going from boats etc, the materials for which wouldn't float if they were just a cube, but in the right kind of a shape do.



Quote

If that's right then there might be another experiment, similar to the second one: two objects with equal volume (though not equally porous), with the first being lighter than the second. Then, the first object would be more porous, so if both are submerged for a length of time for all the air to be replaced by water, the lighter object would sink faster if it was brought to the surface again because less water's displaced by it.
I realise it's not a particularly reliable experiment, timing and raising objects to equal heights etc is filled with a wealth of problems as far as reliability goes, just trying to ensure I understand what you're saying.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Maybe I'm having a moment.
Yeah, not sure what I was on about either, sorry.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 03:38:51 PM
I'm with Bill Nye on this one.
8) 8) 8) thanks friend.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 06, 2016, 03:48:45 PM
I'm with Bill Nye on this one.
8) 8) 8) thanks friend.

I'm new here and while I am experienced with conspiracy theorists in general, the ones I find here are gobsmackingly idiotic. Whilst not a fully qualified psychologist, I am published in the field, but these people leave me gasping at their sheer inability to reason and the degree of paranoia is frankly, scary. I struggle to imagine have most of these people could function in the real world with such massive failings in reason, logic and interpersonal skills. I suspect that most in fact, do not.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 06, 2016, 03:52:20 PM
I didn't mean just surface area, but presumably that is a factor as well?
Just going from boats etc, the materials for which wouldn't float if they were just a cube, but in the right kind of a shape do.

Shape only matters for how fast and efficiently something can travel through the water.  If something can displace enough water that is equal to what it weighs it will float.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 06, 2016, 04:09:23 PM
Shape only matters for how fast and efficiently something can travel through the water.  If something can displace enough water that is equal to what it weighs it will float.
Which requires a fair surface area being in contact with the water, for practical purposes (plus hollowness), to maximise displacement.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 04:28:06 PM
Whilst not a fully qualified psychologist, I am published in the field, but these people leave me gasping at their sheer inability to reason and the degree of paranoia is frankly, scary. I struggle to imagine have most of these people could function in the real world with such massive failings in reason, logic and interpersonal skills. I suspect that most in fact, do not.

I am certainly not a psychologist either but I am willing to wager at least some of the FE supporters suffer from symptoms of schizophrenia  (especially JRoweSkeptic, apparently the Aether communicates with him directly to his mind)
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 06, 2016, 04:53:02 PM
Whilst not a fully qualified psychologist, I am published in the field, but these people leave me gasping at their sheer inability to reason and the degree of paranoia is frankly, scary. I struggle to imagine have most of these people could function in the real world with such massive failings in reason, logic and interpersonal skills. I suspect that most in fact, do not.

I am certainly not a psychologist either but I am willing to wager at least some of the FE supporters suffer from symptoms of schizophrenia  (especially JRoweSkeptic, apparently the Aether communicates with him directly to his mind)

I did not know that about JRowe.  I will just leave him be if he is that far gone.  Anybody posting something questioning his model will likely just make it worse.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 06, 2016, 07:57:21 PM
Ok, let's move on with denspressure theory,   bearing in mind that we are talking about an abstract physics that doesn't necessarily apply in any real world sense.   The simplest of experiments prove that it doesn't work in the objective reality we experience.  But is it a self consistent physics?

The inverse buoyancy concept is an interesting interpretation,  but what causes "stacking"  what force gives rise to the notion of "up" and "down",  in conventional physics it's gravity,  what is the corresponding force in denspressure?

Also, what is the denspressure definition of density?   Weight per unit volume?    Following further,  what is the denspressure definition of pressure,   force per unit area?

If those definitions are correct,  what is the origin of  that weight,  and where does that force come from?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 10:43:07 PM
You subscribe to a theory that ignores the most basic principles of fluid dynamics.
And what is that?
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/properties2.html
Here's a website from Perdue University describing basic qualities of gas, particularly the 2nd principle of gas "gases expand to fill their containers," and while you are there brushing up on your elementary physics try and find a principle of gas that states gas particles can stack in a heap like a bale of hay.

Because it's stacked from the bottom up and expands till it cannot agitate. IIt then goes dormant and forms the skin. The ice dome.
The ice dome? Earlier you said the upper atmosphere is not held by a solid firmament, and now you have changed your stance. If this "ice dome" does exist, then the earth is a large container and therefore the atmosphere would constantly push toward equilibrium and pressurize the entire system. You know, how gases would work in reality, instead of your untested thought experiments?


Is the atmosphere the same at the top of a high mountain as it is at the bottom?
If not, there goes your equilibrium. It's stacked.
No, the pressure changes as you change altitude because gravity is pulling the atmosphere toward the earth's center of gravity. I am telling you that in your model, based on the simplest principles of gases, air pressure shouldn't change at all because gravity doesn't exist, and the system is enclosed under the supposed "ice dome". This is because gases expand to fill their container, no matter the size of the container.

This is because air, being a gas, will expand and form the shape of any container it is placed in.
Yep, in a container it will.
You mean like the container created by the ice dome?

Note that when I say "expand" the actual size of the particles themselves remains constant, the parties just spread out more.
When you say they spread out more, do you mean they expand or do you mean they simply spread out and leave free space?
The particles spread out of course, particles themselves do not magically grow in size. Where did you get such an idea? Why would gas particles have this property when solid and liquid particles do not?

The gases aren't kept in the system by the firmament. The gases simply stop being pushed/squeezed up and simply freeze against a (possibly) a true vacuum.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: For CO2 to freeze, it needs to be under very high pressure. Look up a phase diagram for carbon dioxide if you dont believe me. In your model (and mine) gases are at very low pressure at high altitude, so where does the sudden high pressure come from? One gram of solid CO2 has a volume of 0.641 mL. At 0C and atmospheric pressure, the same amount of CO2 gas has a volume of 556 mL, which is more than 850 times as large. At altitude, the change in volume would be exponentially greater. This means that, to form an ice dome, you need a very large amount of gas to be kept at very high pressure. The ice dome model is simply not feasible in any real sense. Since the ice dome physically cannot exist, what is keeping the entire atmosphere from diffusing into the vacuum of space?


I am sure you are familiar with the concept, "Nature abhors a vacuum"
Yep and in nature there isn't a vacuum, because a vacuum does not and cannot exist to our perception. It can to our imagination.
OK so if a vacuum cannot exist, what lies beyond the firmament? Previously you said there was a vacuum there, but you have already changed your mind on the subject of a rigid firmament, so I guess your model still needs some kinks worked out.


Because it's stacked from the bottom up.
Could you show any real, testable evidence that gases stack? Are there any experiments that could allow one to reach this conclusion?

They do stack in the way I'm describing.
Why don't you prove it? You cannot just make claims and say they are true. You need to test them in repeatable experiments. And no, making slipshod analogies comparing solid bodies to fluids doesn't count as a repeatable experiment. This entire thread is about testing the denpressure model. Can't you perform or at least devise an experiment that can verify your claims?


It doesn't really seem like you have an open mind. You rejected all of the experimental findings in this thread, without offering a single thought as to what those findings could mean.
I'm taking on-board everything that's being said. I am not just going to jump in and accept them as being correct if they do not show a true reflection.
You agreed to the experiments and their possible conclusions. I even asked you if you had any problems with the experiments before they were conducted, and you claimed you didn't. Now that the results of the experiments you agreed with initially have incontrovertibly proven denpressure to be false, only now do you claim they "do not show a true reflection". Could you possibly be more vague? Why didn't you make corrections to the experiments before the experiments were conducted?

It appears to me that your goal is to smash this theory rather than try and understand it to get it to a favourable position.
I understand the theory perfectly. That is why I am able to tell you all of the things that are wrong with it. If you had any understanding of the properties of gases, you would be able to comprehend these issues as well.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 06, 2016, 10:44:43 PM
Alright, let's sum up where we're at:

Three experiments have been described and approved of by sceptimatic.  A fourth has been described and approved of by scepticmatic in a different thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804618#msg1804618
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804622#msg1804622

Experiment #1.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806280#msg1806280
No one has expressed any objection to this result.

Experiment #2.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806556#msg1806556
No one has expressed any objection to this result.

Experiment #3.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806093#msg1806093
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806340#msg1806340

Sceptimatic's only coherent objection to the results is the presence of humidity in the containers.  This is objection is invalid however as the amount of condensation in the containers were far below what it would take to meaningfully skew the results.

Experiment #4.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804620#msg1804620
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805937#msg1805937
Sceptimatic has objection to sokarul's result as an outright lie.  Sceptimatic has not commented on neutrino's result.

I feel that it's not my place to draw conclusions in this thread.  I present this data only for the reader's consideration.

Thanks to everyone involved in this thread.  It's been a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 06, 2016, 10:58:47 PM
Alright, let's sum up where we're at:

Three experiments have been described and approved of by sceptimatic.  A fourth has been described and approved of by scepticmatic in a different thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804618#msg1804618
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804622#msg1804622

Experiment #1.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806280#msg1806280
No one has expressed any objection to this result.

Experiment #2.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806556#msg1806556
No one has expressed any objection to this result.

Experiment #3.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806093#msg1806093
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806340#msg1806340

Sceptimatic's only coherent objection to the results is the presence of humidity in the containers.  This is objection is invalid however as the amount of condensation in the containers were far below what it would take to meaningfully skew the results.

Experiment #4.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804620#msg1804620
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805937#msg1805937
Sceptimatic has objection to sokarul's result as an outright lie.  Sceptimatic has not commented on neutrino's result.

I feel that it's not my place to draw conclusions in this thread.  I present this data only for the reader's consideration.

Thanks to everyone involved in this thread.  It's been a lot of fun.

Scepti disputed the results here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806456#msg1806456

Personally I think he did not offer anything constructive like explaining why the experiments were flawed or an alternative interpretation of the observations.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 11:11:25 PM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

Septic if you were a man of science as you claim to be, you would either
1) Be able to coherently describe why these experiments could be in any way inconclusive
2) admit the denpressure theory has serious flaws

Since you have failed to act like a seeker of absolute truth, you have proven yourself to be in denial. You shut your eyes and ears to the truth. That's fine. You have the right to live that way. But if you dare tell me or anybody else that denpressure answers more questions about the universe than gravity, know that I will be there to link the poor sap to this very thread where you were proven wrong.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 07, 2016, 12:46:11 AM
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

Septic if you were a man of science as you claim to be, you would either
1) Be able to coherently describe why these experiments could be in any way inconclusive
2) admit the denpressure theory has serious flaws

Since you have failed to act like a seeker of absolute truth, you have proven yourself to be in denial. You shut your eyes and ears to the truth. That's fine. You have the right to live that way. But if you dare tell me or anybody else that denpressure answers more questions about the universe than gravity, know that I will be there to link the poor sap to this very thread where you were proven wrong.

There is a good reason we have a theory of gravity. It works. It explains our physical universe fairly well although Dark Matter is a problem. But in the environment in which we operate, it works very well. We might not understand what causes gravity, but we have a very good model of how it operates including detailed mathematical models to describe it. Denpressure fails in every single aspect and is not even consistent in itself. It doesnt even rise to the level of bad science. It is not even bad pseudo-science. It is just sheer and utter nonsense from beginning to end.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 07, 2016, 12:50:41 AM
OK OK I'll take the responsibility:

DENPRESSURE IS FALSE
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 01:10:37 AM
I'm with Bill Nye on this one. You want to think that you are formulating an alternative theory to that of gravity byt the basic failing is that you need to denounce and ignore 2500 years of science to do so. in 500BC this theory could gain some credence because we couldnt measure pressure, weigh things very accurately nor ddid we have much of a model of the physical universe. But today, you are asking that we throw literally everything we know and can prove away simply to entertain this rubbish idea of yours?  In your febrile mind, there are no planets, no galaxies, no space travel, no vacuum and every single bit of evidence that contradicts you is garbage or faked. There are cave men that would mock your 'thinking' here.  your theory does not match any of our real-world experiences and is so easily debunked that it is childs-play.

Your understanding of molecules and rejection of the atomic structure leads me to ask: how many elements do you think exists? My guess is four - fire, air, water and air.

I am a bible-believing, active Christian and former missionary and youth pastor. You are an embarrassment to all of us who call Christ our Saviour. You are deeply and sadly deluded.
Prove to me "physically" just one thing that you know to be true in what you have just said in this post and explain why.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 07, 2016, 01:14:58 AM
Alright, let's sum up where we're at:

Three experiments have been described and approved of by sceptimatic.  A fourth has been described and approved of by scepticmatic in a different thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804618#msg1804618
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804622#msg1804622

Experiment #1.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806280#msg1806280
No one has expressed any objection to this result.

Experiment #2.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806556#msg1806556
No one has expressed any objection to this result.

Experiment #3.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806093#msg1806093
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806340#msg1806340

Sceptimatic's only coherent objection to the results is the presence of humidity in the containers.  This is objection is invalid however as the amount of condensation in the containers were far below what it would take to meaningfully skew the results.

Experiment #4.  Produced results contrary to denspressure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.msg1804620#msg1804620
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805937#msg1805937
Sceptimatic has objection to sokarul's result as an outright lie.  Sceptimatic has not commented on neutrino's result.

I feel that it's not my place to draw conclusions in this thread.  I present this data only for the reader's consideration.

Thanks to everyone involved in this thread.  It's been a lot of fun.

Scepti disputed the results here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1806456#msg1806456

Personally I think he did not offer anything constructive like explaining why the experiments were flawed or an alternative interpretation of the observations.

Yeah, the thing is starting with post #240 onward, what sceptimatic wrote is really more of a bunch of wild flailing intermixed with bizarre analogies than a coherent argument.  It's debatable I suppose.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 01:15:53 AM
I'm with Bill Nye on this one.
8) 8) 8) thanks friend.

I'm new here and while I am experienced with conspiracy theorists in general, the ones I find here are gobsmackingly idiotic. Whilst not a fully qualified psychologist, I am published in the field, but these people leave me gasping at their sheer inability to reason and the degree of paranoia is frankly, scary. I struggle to imagine have most of these people could function in the real world with such massive failings in reason, logic and interpersonal skills. I suspect that most in fact, do not.
How about opening a topic on your psychology skills and I'll be happy to take part. Leave this for what it's for. Unless of course your goal is to attempt ridicule on something and with someone that is closer to the bone than you'd prefer.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 07, 2016, 01:31:39 AM
How about opening a topic on your psychology skills and I'll be happy to take part. Leave this for what it's for.
Good idea scepti, let's get back on topic. Address my points please.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 01:45:20 AM
Well well, this topic turned into exactly the kind of topic I expected. There are only one or two genuine global Earthers even attempting to look into what I'm saying. the rest are doing their utmost to make sure that anyone looking in at denpressure will be put off enough if my theory is ridicules en-masse.

Let me explain something to those looking in and to those who have some grasp on what I've been talking about.
Denpressure is alive and well. It's a reality that requires constant explaining in many different contexts using many different analogies just to scratch the surface.
Why?
Because the absolute saturation of mainstream supposed scientific nonsense on Earth and it's supposed ways of operation, have been fine tuned in all magical ways and indoctrinated into the minds of everyone, that it's extremely difficult for them to deviate from that path.

None of you people (you know who you are) have destroyed any of what I've been talking about. Most of you do not even understand the simplest part, whether that's deliberate or it's just too logical for you; I don't really know.

Once the psychologists started to enter into the topic, I knew what and where this topic was going.


Anyone that's still interested in painstakingly trying to understand it, feel free to come at me and I'll continue to try to get to a place where some semblance of my theory can be pitched with reality or even the potential of it, because let's face it, the mainstream science world of theory has some monumental magical forces at hand, don't they?

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 07, 2016, 02:55:07 AM
I'm with Bill Nye on this one. You want to think that you are formulating an alternative theory to that of gravity byt the basic failing is that you need to denounce and ignore 2500 years of science to do so. in 500BC this theory could gain some credence because we couldnt measure pressure, weigh things very accurately nor ddid we have much of a model of the physical universe. But today, you are asking that we throw literally everything we know and can prove away simply to entertain this rubbish idea of yours?  In your febrile mind, there are no planets, no galaxies, no space travel, no vacuum and every single bit of evidence that contradicts you is garbage or faked. There are cave men that would mock your 'thinking' here.  your theory does not match any of our real-world experiences and is so easily debunked that it is childs-play.

Your understanding of molecules and rejection of the atomic structure leads me to ask: how many elements do you think exists? My guess is four - fire, air, water and air.

I am a bible-believing, active Christian and former missionary and youth pastor. You are an embarrassment to all of us who call Christ our Saviour. You are deeply and sadly deluded.
Prove to me "physically" just one thing that you know to be true in what you have just said in this post and explain why.

There are planets. We can see them and in fact have even been to Mars via rover. We know a great deal about them and can bee seen through telescopes.  And then there is the rest of the universe.

And perfect vaccum likely does not exist in large volumes because even in deep space there may be a molecule of something (most likely hydrogen) in a  cubic metre. BUT good vacuums  are more than capable of destroying your denpressure idea by creating near enough to zero atmosphere.

and then there is also the entire rest of the body of physical science which breaks your concept into pieces.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 07, 2016, 02:58:03 AM
Well well, this topic turned into exactly the kind of topic I expected. There are only one or two genuine global Earthers even attempting to look into what I'm saying. the rest are doing their utmost to make sure that anyone looking in at denpressure will be put off enough if my theory is ridicules en-masse.

Let me explain something to those looking in and to those who have some grasp on what I've been talking about.
Denpressure is alive and well. It's a reality that requires constant explaining in many different contexts using many different analogies just to scratch the surface.
Why?
Because the absolute saturation of mainstream supposed scientific nonsense on Earth and it's supposed ways of operation, have been fine tuned in all magical ways and indoctrinated into the minds of everyone, that it's extremely difficult for them to deviate from that path.

None of you people (you know who you are) have destroyed any of what I've been talking about. Most of you do not even understand the simplest part, whether that's deliberate or it's just too logical for you; I don't really know.

Once the psychologists started to enter into the topic, I knew what and where this topic was going.


Anyone that's still interested in painstakingly trying to understand it, feel free to come at me and I'll continue to try to get to a place where some semblance of my theory can be pitched with reality or even the potential of it, because let's face it, the mainstream science world of theory has some monumental magical forces at hand, don't they?

it might help your cause if you provided some actual math to back up your theory or some detailed hypotheses that can be tested. All you give are a few broad ideas and then criticise every attempt to test them when they inevitably fail.

you know ZIP about the scientific method. And I still asked you how many elements there were and if you even believe in the subatomic structure.

Care to share with us your 'insights' on such matters?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 02:59:57 AM
Repost,  since I posted this it got buried in the noise.

Ok, let's move on with denspressure theory,   bearing in mind that we are talking about an abstract physics that doesn't necessarily apply in any real world sense.   The simplest of experiments prove that it doesn't work in the objective reality we experience.  But is it a self consistent physics?

The inverse buoyancy concept is an interesting interpretation,  but what causes "stacking"  what force gives rise to the notion of "up" and "down",  in conventional physics it's gravity,  what is the corresponding force in denspressure?

Also, what is the denspressure definition of density?   Weight per unit volume?    Following further,  what is the denspressure definition of pressure,   force per unit area?

If those definitions are correct,  what is the origin of  that weight,  and where does that force come from?

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 06:29:02 AM
I'm with Bill Nye on this one. You want to think that you are formulating an alternative theory to that of gravity byt the basic failing is that you need to denounce and ignore 2500 years of science to do so. in 500BC this theory could gain some credence because we couldnt measure pressure, weigh things very accurately nor ddid we have much of a model of the physical universe. But today, you are asking that we throw literally everything we know and can prove away simply to entertain this rubbish idea of yours?  In your febrile mind, there are no planets, no galaxies, no space travel, no vacuum and every single bit of evidence that contradicts you is garbage or faked. There are cave men that would mock your 'thinking' here.  your theory does not match any of our real-world experiences and is so easily debunked that it is childs-play.

Your understanding of molecules and rejection of the atomic structure leads me to ask: how many elements do you think exists? My guess is four - fire, air, water and air.

I am a bible-believing, active Christian and former missionary and youth pastor. You are an embarrassment to all of us who call Christ our Saviour. You are deeply and sadly deluded.
Prove to me "physically" just one thing that you know to be true in what you have just said in this post and explain why.

There are planets. We can see them and in fact have even been to Mars via rover. We know a great deal about them and can bee seen through telescopes.  And then there is the rest of the universe.

And perfect vaccum likely does not exist in large volumes because even in deep space there may be a molecule of something (most likely hydrogen) in a  cubic metre. BUT good vacuums  are more than capable of destroying your denpressure idea by creating near enough to zero atmosphere.

and then there is also the entire rest of the body of physical science which breaks your concept into pieces.
Prove to me "physically" just one thing that you know to be true in what you have just said in this post and explain why.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 06:31:55 AM
Well well, this topic turned into exactly the kind of topic I expected. There are only one or two genuine global Earthers even attempting to look into what I'm saying. the rest are doing their utmost to make sure that anyone looking in at denpressure will be put off enough if my theory is ridicules en-masse.

Let me explain something to those looking in and to those who have some grasp on what I've been talking about.
Denpressure is alive and well. It's a reality that requires constant explaining in many different contexts using many different analogies just to scratch the surface.
Why?
Because the absolute saturation of mainstream supposed scientific nonsense on Earth and it's supposed ways of operation, have been fine tuned in all magical ways and indoctrinated into the minds of everyone, that it's extremely difficult for them to deviate from that path.

None of you people (you know who you are) have destroyed any of what I've been talking about. Most of you do not even understand the simplest part, whether that's deliberate or it's just too logical for you; I don't really know.

Once the psychologists started to enter into the topic, I knew what and where this topic was going.


Anyone that's still interested in painstakingly trying to understand it, feel free to come at me and I'll continue to try to get to a place where some semblance of my theory can be pitched with reality or even the potential of it, because let's face it, the mainstream science world of theory has some monumental magical forces at hand, don't they?

it might help your cause if you provided some actual math to back up your theory or some detailed hypotheses that can be tested. All you give are a few broad ideas and then criticise every attempt to test them when they inevitably fail.

you know ZIP about the scientific method. And I still asked you how many elements there were and if you even believe in the subatomic structure.

Care to share with us your 'insights' on such matters?
How can I share my insights into what you want if I know nothing about anything?
You stick to your schooled version like a robot and I'll carry on thinking up the best ways to prove to people that the indoctrinated way is the bullshit way.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 06:38:42 AM
Repost,  since I posted this it got buried in the noise.

Ok, let's move on with denspressure theory,   bearing in mind that we are talking about an abstract physics that doesn't necessarily apply in any real world sense.   The simplest of experiments prove that it doesn't work in the objective reality we experience.  But is it a self consistent physics?

The inverse buoyancy concept is an interesting interpretation,  but what causes "stacking"  what force gives rise to the notion of "up" and "down",  in conventional physics it's gravity,  what is the corresponding force in denspressure?

Also, what is the denspressure definition of density?   Weight per unit volume?    Following further,  what is the denspressure definition of pressure,   force per unit area?

If those definitions are correct,  what is the origin of  that weight,  and where does that force come from?
You've been told many times about stacking. You keep asking for measurements of denpressure.
The measurements are all there disguised as gravity force. Your scale plates measure the force.

You say the notion of up and down is due to gravity and that's that. So tell me something. What makes gravity have an up and down?

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 06:45:30 AM
You say the notion of up and down is due to gravity and that's that. So tell me something. What makes gravity have an up and down?

The mass of the earth makes things with mass fall towards the center of the earth,   the force is  F = -mg  where m is the mass of the object,  g is the acceleration due to the earth's gravitational field.  F is called the weight.    By convention we set g=1 at the surface of the earth,  so a mass of 1kg has a weight (or downward force) of 1kg.

Without gravity there is no up and down and there is no weight.   

What's the equivalent in denspressure?   Or putting it more simply what gives the pressure a direction?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 07:02:19 AM
You say the notion of up and down is due to gravity and that's that. So tell me something. What makes gravity have an up and down?

The mass of the earth makes things with mass fall towards the center of the earth,   the force is  F = -mg  where m is the mass of the object,  g is the acceleration due to the earth's gravitational field.  F is called the weight.    By convention we set g=1 at the surface of the earth,  so a mass of 1kg has a weight (or downward force) of 1kg.

Without gravity there is no up and down and there is no weight.   

What's the equivalent in denspressure?   Or putting it more simply what gives the pressure a direction?
Tell me how gravity has an up and down. You've mentioned mass FALLING to the centre of the Earth. What's making it fall and why is it falling to the CENTRE of the Earth?
Why is the KG weight a weight at all? What determines that weight on a scale plate?
How come gravity PULLS down and yet PULLS up at the same time?




As for denpressure. Denpressure has a direction to our human balance system due to our dense bodies PUSHING into the atmosphere from the solid Earth and resisting the push back onto us. It's an equal action force followed on by an equal reaction force.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 07:11:31 AM
Tell me how gravity has an up and down. You've mentioned mass FALLING to the centre of the Earth. What's making it fall and why is it falling to the CENTRE of the Earth?
Why is the KG weight a weight at all? What determines that weight on a scale plate?
How come gravity PULLS down and yet PULLS up at the same time?




As for denpressure. Denpressure has a direction to our human balance system due to our dense bodies PUSHING into the atmosphere from the solid Earth and resisting the push back onto us. It's an equal action force followed on by an equal reaction force.

Ok,  lets make it simpler,   down is the direction of the center of the earth.    That's it.  Seriously, it really is that simple.  Things fall towards the center.

Why do things fall?   The mass of the earth creates a gravitational field.   Like an electric charge creates an electric field,  it's a property of mass itself.

Gravity never PULLS up,  don't know where you got that idea from?   

Back to Denpressure,  where does the "push down" from the atmosphere come from?   
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 07:52:04 AM

Ok,  lets make it simpler,   down is the direction of the center of the earth.    That's it.  Seriously, it really is that simple.  Things fall towards the center.
If down is the centre of the Earth then what determines UP?


Why do things fall?   The mass of the earth creates a gravitational field.   Like an electric charge creates an electric field,  it's a property of mass itself.
I was told that a person falling towards the centre of Earth would stop and float and would not fall any further, so how does that work with gravity?




Gravity never PULLS up,  don't know where you got that idea from?   
If gravity never pulls up then what's happening with the tides being PULLED by the moon as we are told?



Back to Denpressure,  where does the "push down" from the atmosphere come from?   
From the stacking up of each molecule pushing into each other to create a resistance on each other from bottom to top.

Analogy: One football on the ground pushes the next football on top of it and that football pushes against the bottom football but also against the football above it. And so on and so on until the very last football is pushed upon but does not push back because it has nothing to push back with, so it freezes.
Just think of this happening in the almost (to us) infinite of molecules all in different stages of pushing, or vibrating at frequencies galore.

If you need more on down then I need more on your UP and DOWN.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Sam Hill on August 07, 2016, 07:55:57 AM
Gravity never PULLS up,  don't know where you got that idea from?

Sure it does.  Every object with mass exerts a gravitational pull in all directions: up, down, left, right, fore, aft.  The direction of the gravitational force exerted by two objects on each other is toward the center of mass of each object, while the magnitude is a function of the two masses.  So the Earth exerts upon your body a force toward the Earth's center of mass (or "down").  That large force exerted upon your small mass results in detectable accelleration.  Your body exerts the same amount of force upon the Earth toward your center of mass (or "up").  That large force exerted upon the super enormous gargantuan mass results in teeny tiny unmeasurably small accelleration.

Bottom line is this: local "down" is determined by the largest local mass, and local"up" is in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 08:20:43 AM
DOWN is towards the center of the earth.
UP is AWAY from the center of the earth. 


Or if you want to more general, up is away from the center of mass.    Gravity never PULLS UP,  it always PULLS DOWN, 

Or rephrasing that,  gravity is always attractive between masses,  no-one has ever discovered anti-gravity.

If you were falling down a hole that went all the way through the earth,  then you would end up after some time,  floating weightless at the center of the earth.  Probably oscillate back and forth at terminal velocity for a while.   You'd be dead of course.

Tides are caused by the moons gravitational field,  not by the earth,  the earth always pulls down,   the moon pulls the tides towards the center of mass of the moon,  which is still DOWN,  but from the moons point of view.   Gravity always attracts.

Quote
From the stacking up of each molecule pushing into each other to create a resistance on each other from bottom to top.

Analogy: One football on the ground pushes the next football on top of it and that football pushes against the bottom football but also against the football above it. And so on and so on until the very last football is pushed upon but does not push back because it has nothing to push back with, so it freezes.
Just think of this happening in the almost (to us) infinite of molecules all in different stages of pushing, or vibrating at frequencies galore.

Back to stacking,  why do the molecules (footballs)  push into each other,  what force is causing that push in the stack?   Without gravity there is nothing pushing the football into the next one.

You can have pressure  inside a closed volume  without gravity,  but the pressure acts equally in all directions,  there is no UP or DOWN.



Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 07, 2016, 08:26:09 AM
On the cause of the up/down direction when it comes to denpressure, the easiest way to think of it I've found is to consider in terms of buoyancy. We exist at ground level, so to push up we move away from ground level, which displaces air. If you think of what's above as as a somehow upside-down swimming pool, then the water would push you back to the ground. Clearly gravity isn't needed to act in the same direction as the force; the water resists displacement.
As, under Scepti's model, air molecules expand to fill a gap, you do end up with a much more connected environment, more akin to a fluid than how you might think of air as molecules whirling around independently.

As far as understanding the basic mechanism goes, though, considering it as buoyancy is the best way I've found.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 08:31:59 AM
On the cause of the up/down direction when it comes to denpressure, the easiest way to think of it I've found is to consider in terms of buoyancy. We exist at ground level, so to push up we move away from ground level, which displaces air. If you think of what's above as as a somehow upside-down swimming pool, then the water would push you back to the ground. Clearly gravity isn't needed to act in the same direction as the force; the water resists displacement.
As, under Scepti's model, air molecules expand to fill a gap, you do end up with a much more connected environment, more akin to a fluid than how you might think of air as molecules whirling around independently.

As far as understanding the basic mechanism goes, though, considering it as buoyancy is the best way I've found.

Therein lies the problem,  what distinguishes pushing UP from pushing LEFT or RIGHT or for that matter DOWN.  The connected environment would act equally in all directions.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 07, 2016, 08:34:58 AM
Therein lies the problem,  what distinguishes pushing UP from pushing LEFT or RIGHT or for that matter DOWN.  The connected environment would act equally in all directions.
Not if you think of it like a pool: if you move left and right underwater, you don't get pushed back, but you do get pushed up because you entered into the environment from the top.
It's worth nothing that there does seem to be something that distinguishes the ground. I seem to remember Scepti saying the dome itself is made up of air, as it got so far away that it'd basically freeze, so if you go far left, far right, far up, you'd stay strictly in air. Only below us is there ground, which is why the pool analogy's effective: you are effectively entering into the air from below.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 08:38:57 AM
On the cause of the up/down direction when it comes to denpressure, the easiest way to think of it I've found is to consider in terms of buoyancy. We exist at ground level, so to push up we move away from ground level, which displaces air. If you think of what's above as as a somehow upside-down swimming pool, then the water would push you back to the ground. Clearly gravity isn't needed to act in the same direction as the force; the water resists displacement.
As, under Scepti's model, air molecules expand to fill a gap, you do end up with a much more connected environment, more akin to a fluid than how you might think of air as molecules whirling around independently.

As far as understanding the basic mechanism goes, though, considering it as buoyancy is the best way I've found.
It is actually the best way.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 08:43:27 AM
Therein lies the problem,  what distinguishes pushing UP from pushing LEFT or RIGHT or for that matter DOWN.  The connected environment would act equally in all directions.
Not if you think of it like a pool: if you move left and right underwater, you don't get pushed back, but you do get pushed up because you entered into the environment from the top.
It's worth nothing that there does seem to be something that distinguishes the ground. I seem to remember Scepti saying the dome itself is made up of air, as it got so far away that it'd basically freeze, so if you go far left, far right, far up, you'd stay strictly in air. Only below us is there ground, which is why the pool analogy's effective: you are effectively entering into the air from below.

Good analogy,  you can't go down the earth stops movement in that direction,  that but if you try to go up you have to push against the stacked air which provides a downward resistance.   

Considering your mathematical background, have you put any thought into formalizing denpressure in mathematical terms. 

Then we need to find an environment that this physics would approximate,  maybe flying through the heavier atmosphere of some of the gas giants like Jupiter? 

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 07, 2016, 08:56:26 AM
Good analogy,  you can't go down the earth stops movement in that direction,  that but if you try to go up you have to push against the stacked air which provides a downward resistance.   

Considering your mathematical background, have you put any thought into formalizing denpressure in mathematical terms. 

Then we need to find an environment that this physics would approximate,  maybe flying through the heavier atmosphere of some of the gas giants like Jupiter?

I'm mostly into purer maths. Pretty good at applied, but I'd need quite a refresher course, which'll have to wait for after my MSc. Still, I'd imagine just using the buoyancy equation, with definitions and constants suitably altered, would give a fair depiction as it seems to be the same underlying principle.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 09:06:37 AM
It would be an interesting exercise,  nonetheless.

Coming from a pure maths background,  I'd recommend brushing up by watching a few  Leonard Suskind  Stanford videos,  the degree of rigour that pure maths instills is lacking in some respects, but for understanding the physics from an applied point of view he is excellent.

Maybe start with classical mechanics.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 07, 2016, 10:31:53 AM
You subscribe to a theory that ignores the most basic principles of fluid dynamics.
And what is that?
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/properties2.html
Here's a website from Perdue University describing basic qualities of gas, particularly the 2nd principle of gas "gases expand to fill their containers," and while you are there brushing up on your elementary physics try and find a principle of gas that states gas particles can stack in a heap like a bale of hay.

Because it's stacked from the bottom up and expands till it cannot agitate. IIt then goes dormant and forms the skin. The ice dome.
The ice dome? Earlier you said the upper atmosphere is not held by a solid firmament, and now you have changed your stance. If this "ice dome" does exist, then the earth is a large container and therefore the atmosphere would constantly push toward equilibrium and pressurize the entire system. You know, how gases would work in reality, instead of your untested thought experiments?


Is the atmosphere the same at the top of a high mountain as it is at the bottom?
If not, there goes your equilibrium. It's stacked.
No, the pressure changes as you change altitude because gravity is pulling the atmosphere toward the earth's center of gravity. I am telling you that in your model, based on the simplest principles of gases, air pressure shouldn't change at all because gravity doesn't exist, and the system is enclosed under the supposed "ice dome". This is because gases expand to fill their container, no matter the size of the container.

This is because air, being a gas, will expand and form the shape of any container it is placed in.
Yep, in a container it will.
You mean like the container created by the ice dome?

Note that when I say "expand" the actual size of the particles themselves remains constant, the parties just spread out more.
When you say they spread out more, do you mean they expand or do you mean they simply spread out and leave free space?
The particles spread out of course, particles themselves do not magically grow in size. Where did you get such an idea? Why would gas particles have this property when solid and liquid particles do not?

The gases aren't kept in the system by the firmament. The gases simply stop being pushed/squeezed up and simply freeze against a (possibly) a true vacuum.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: For CO2 to freeze, it needs to be under very high pressure. Look up a phase diagram for carbon dioxide if you dont believe me. In your model (and mine) gases are at very low pressure at high altitude, so where does the sudden high pressure come from? One gram of solid CO2 has a volume of 0.641 mL. At 0C and atmospheric pressure, the same amount of CO2 gas has a volume of 556 mL, which is more than 850 times as large. At altitude, the change in volume would be exponentially greater. This means that, to form an ice dome, you need a very large amount of gas to be kept at very high pressure. The ice dome model is simply not feasible in any real sense. Since the ice dome physically cannot exist, what is keeping the entire atmosphere from diffusing into the vacuum of space?


I am sure you are familiar with the concept, "Nature abhors a vacuum"
Yep and in nature there isn't a vacuum, because a vacuum does not and cannot exist to our perception. It can to our imagination.
OK so if a vacuum cannot exist, what lies beyond the firmament? Previously you said there was a vacuum there, but you have already changed your mind on the subject of a rigid firmament, so I guess your model still needs some kinks worked out.


Because it's stacked from the bottom up.
Could you show any real, testable evidence that gases stack? Are there any experiments that could allow one to reach this conclusion?

They do stack in the way I'm describing.
Why don't you prove it? You cannot just make claims and say they are true. You need to test them in repeatable experiments. And no, making slipshod analogies comparing solid bodies to fluids doesn't count as a repeatable experiment. This entire thread is about testing the denpressure model. Can't you perform or at least devise an experiment that can verify your claims?


It doesn't really seem like you have an open mind. You rejected all of the experimental findings in this thread, without offering a single thought as to what those findings could mean.
I'm taking on-board everything that's being said. I am not just going to jump in and accept them as being correct if they do not show a true reflection.
You agreed to the experiments and their possible conclusions. I even asked you if you had any problems with the experiments before they were conducted, and you claimed you didn't. Now that the results of the experiments you agreed with initially have incontrovertibly proven denpressure to be false, only now do you claim they "do not show a true reflection". Could you possibly be more vague? Why didn't you make corrections to the experiments before the experiments were conducted?

It appears to me that your goal is to smash this theory rather than try and understand it to get it to a favourable position.
I understand the theory perfectly. That is why I am able to tell you all of the things that are wrong with it. If you had any understanding of the properties of gases, you would be able to comprehend these issues as well.

Scepti I really hate it when you ignore my posts. You claim that I "don't understand even the most basic parts" of denpressure, maybe it's because you keep changing your mind? Is there a true vacuum beyond the atmosphere, or can vacuums not exist at all? Is there some sort of ice dome, or does a rigid firmament not exist? I provided very simple, verifiable explanations as to why your theory cannot work, but you simply ignore them.

About your analogies. You cannot compare gas particles to solid particles. If you had studied the properties of matter, you would know that gas particles do not behave like grains of sand piled on a table. Gas particles do not grow in size under low pressure. Vacuum chambers, while unable to form a TRUE vacuum, can get very close, within .001% of a true vacuum.

You still have not given any reason as to WHY the experiments were flawed. Why do you avoid the issue?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 07, 2016, 02:49:55 PM
Scepti I really hate it when you ignore my posts. You claim that I "don't understand even the most basic parts" of denpressure, maybe it's because you keep changing your mind? Is there a true vacuum beyond the atmosphere, or can vacuums not exist at all? Is there some sort of ice dome, or does a rigid firmament not exist? I provided very simple, verifiable explanations as to why your theory cannot work, but you simply ignore them.

About your analogies. You cannot compare gas particles to solid particles. If you had studied the properties of matter, you would know that gas particles do not behave like grains of sand piled on a table. Gas particles do not grow in size under low pressure. Vacuum chambers, while unable to form a TRUE vacuum, can get very close, within .001% of a true vacuum.

You still have not given any reason as to WHY the experiments were flawed. Why do you avoid the issue?
I'm not avoiding any issue. I just don't think I can go much further in explaining to you if you can't even grasp some of the stuff.
You make out you do but you clearly don't by the way you're going on.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 07, 2016, 03:00:59 PM
DOWN is towards the center of the earth.
UP is AWAY from the center of the earth. 


Or if you want to more general, up is away from the center of mass.    Gravity never PULLS UP,  it always PULLS DOWN, 

Or rephrasing that,  gravity is always attractive between masses,  no-one has ever discovered anti-gravity.

If you were falling down a hole that went all the way through the earth,  then you would end up after some time,  floating weightless at the center of the earth.  Probably oscillate back and forth at terminal velocity for a while.   You'd be dead of course.

Tides are caused by the moons gravitational field,  not by the earth,  the earth always pulls down,   the moon pulls the tides towards the center of mass of the moon,  which is still DOWN,  but from the moons point of view.   Gravity always attracts.

Quote
From the stacking up of each molecule pushing into each other to create a resistance on each other from bottom to top.

Analogy: One football on the ground pushes the next football on top of it and that football pushes against the bottom football but also against the football above it. And so on and so on until the very last football is pushed upon but does not push back because it has nothing to push back with, so it freezes.
Just think of this happening in the almost (to us) infinite of molecules all in different stages of pushing, or vibrating at frequencies galore.

Back to stacking,  why do the molecules (footballs)  push into each other,  what force is causing that push in the stack?   Without gravity there is nothing pushing the football into the next one.

You can have pressure  inside a closed volume  without gravity,  but the pressure acts equally in all directions,  there is no UP or DOWN.





And here, we see the Rayzor deny the tidal forces...
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 07, 2016, 03:11:59 PM
And here, we see the Rayzor deny the tidal forces...

I sure Rayzor could defend himself, but I got nothing going on right now.

You must have missed this part of his post.

Quote
the moon pulls the tides towards the center of mass of the moon,  which is still down,  but from the moons point of view.   Gravity always attracts.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 07, 2016, 04:08:35 PM
Please help me grasp how gas particles stack like a pile of sand on a table. Every analogy you have used involves solid objects stacking. Try placing water on a table, see if it stacks like you imagine it would. Even the most basic principles of gases and how they act state that gases do not behave in this way. I have no idea how you reached this conclusion outside of your own thought experiments. If gases stack in a way that has a measurable effect, there should be an experiment showing this effect. If an experiment cannot be performed or even devised, then you should abandon your theoretical ideas.

Please  help me understand vacuums. You contradict yourself several times regarding vacuums. Do they exist? You claim a vacuum cannot exist in nature, yet you also claim that the upper atmosphere freezes as it meets the vacuum of space. Do you have any proof of this? Or does the atmosphere "freeze" only in your thought experiments?

Please help me understand the ice dome. As I have shown, gases need to be under high pressure and incredibly low temperatures to freeze. Yet you have said that at the upper atmosphere has low pressure. Where does the high pressure necessary for solidification of upper atmosphere gases come from?

Please help me understand why you refute the experiments in this thread. Before the experiments were conducted, I asked you personally if you had any problems with the experiments. You claimed they were sound. Only after they have shown evidence against your fragile mindset do you give vague claims about inconclusiveness. Why are the results inconclusive?

You have done nothing to reaffirm your claims with verifiable facts. Your only explanations for stacking gas particles are flawed analogies. The reason why they are flawed is because they utilize solid objects that are supposed to represent gaseous objects. This is beyond apples and oranges. This is like comparing apples to air, (which is literally what you're doing).

Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 05:58:31 PM
Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.

I took a step sideways,  to resolve the same questions that you are asking.   First,  treat denpressure as an abstract theoretical physics that doesn't intersect with the real world, and then try and construct a self consistent physics based on denpressure.  Experimentally we know it doesn't work in the real world,  but that's irrelevant for now.

Ok,  on to my concept of stacking.    We have no gravity remember. 

But we do have ground,  which stops us from going in that direction,  which we will call down,  what keeps us on the ground and stops us going up is the stacked air above us, the stack resists us by pushing back, just as we push against the ground.    At least that's my current understanding.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 06:11:27 PM
And here, we see the Rayzor deny the tidal forces...

I sure Rayzor could defend himself, but I got nothing going on right now.

You must have missed this part of his post.

Quote
the moon pulls the tides towards the center of mass of the moon,  which is still down,  but from the moons point of view.   Gravity always attracts.

Thanks Woody,  jroa is predictable if nothing else,   and mostly it's nothing else.

Tidal forces in a gravitational sense aren't usually the ocean tides as such,  but rather the divergence of the gravitational field that is responsible to "tidal locking" of a moons rotation that is commonly seen.

Now jroa can butt in with more of his useful and homely insights.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 07, 2016, 06:23:42 PM

I took a step sideways,  to resolve the same questions that you are asking.   First,  treat denpressure as an abstract theoretical physics that doesn't intersect with the real world, and then try and construct a self consistent physics based on denpressure.  Experimentally we know it doesn't work in the real world,  but that's irrelevant for now.

If denpressure doesn't work in the real world, then why continue supporting it? Why use it as a model to explain the world around you when it doesn't work?


Ok,  on to my concept of stacking.    We have no gravity remember. 

But we do have ground,  which stops us from going in that direction,  which we will call down,  what keeps us on the ground and stops us going up is the stacked air above us, the stack resists us by pushing back, just as we push against the ground.    At least that's my current understanding.

That's all well and good, but at the very top of the stack, what is pulling that final molecule downward? There is no pressure pushing it downwards, so why wouldn't that top particle jettison into space?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 07, 2016, 06:53:28 PM
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 single top molecule down on the one below it?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 07:21:35 PM

I took a step sideways,  to resolve the same questions that you are asking.   First,  treat denpressure as an abstract theoretical physics that doesn't intersect with the real world, and then try and construct a self consistent physics based on denpressure.  Experimentally we know it doesn't work in the real world,  but that's irrelevant for now.

If denpressure doesn't work in the real world, then why continue supporting it? Why use it as a model to explain the world around you when it doesn't work?

I'm not supporting it as anything relevant to the real world,   I am interested to understand it a bit better and to see if it is in fact self consistent.  I'd like to see it modelled mathematically.

Ok,  on to my concept of stacking.    We have no gravity remember. 

But we do have ground,  which stops us from going in that direction,  which we will call down,  what keeps us on the ground and stops us going up is the stacked air above us, the stack resists us by pushing back, just as we push against the ground.    At least that's my current understanding.

That's all well and good, but at the very top of the stack, what is pulling that final molecule downward? There is no pressure pushing it downwards, so why wouldn't that top particle jettison into space?

Quote from: Woody
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 single top molecule down on the one below it?

Good question,  I don't know for sure,  but I think the free molecules at the top of the stack are frozen,  that is they can't expand any more,  they are stretched to the limit. 


Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 07, 2016, 07:57:19 PM
In some ways there are parallels with Aristotle's laws of physics,  which   Leonard Susskind does an excellent job describing.





Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 12:28:07 AM
Please help me grasp how gas particles stack like a pile of sand on a table. Every analogy you have used involves solid objects stacking.
Yeah, I'm stupid, I should have realised you can't grasp analogies.

Try placing water on a table, see if it stacks like you imagine it would.
And to think I've spent all this time explaining things to you. I'm just pleased some people grasped what I was saying.

Even the most basic principles of gases and how they act state that gases do not behave in this way.
How about just telling me how they behave and use an analogy in a simple way to explain. If you can.

 
I have no idea how you reached this conclusion outside of your own thought experiments. If gases stack in a way that has a measurable effect, there should be an experiment showing this effect. If an experiment cannot be performed or even devised, then you should abandon your theoretical ideas.
Yes there's experiments but none of which you are interested in or are even willing to grasp, because your goal is not to grasp, it's to attempt ridicule whilst basically wasting your own time and effort.
Please  help me understand vacuums. You contradict yourself several times regarding vacuums. Do they exist? You claim a vacuum cannot exist in nature, yet you also claim that the upper atmosphere freezes as it meets the vacuum of space.
I've explained it all very simply and yet you pretend or simply can't understand it.

Do you have any proof of this? Or does the atmosphere "freeze" only in your thought experiments?
I'll leave that up to you to decide, to amuse yourself.
Please help me understand the ice dome. As I have shown, gases need to be under high pressure and incredibly low temperatures to freeze. Yet you have said that at the upper atmosphere has low pressure. Where does the high pressure necessary for solidification of upper atmosphere gases come from?
I don't think you can or want to be help, seriously. I think your goal is to simply muddy the waters at best or you simply cannot comprehend simplicity.
Please help me understand why you refute the experiments in this thread. Before the experiments were conducted, I asked you personally if you had any problems with the experiments. You claimed they were sound. Only after they have shown evidence against your fragile mindset do you give vague claims about inconclusiveness. Why are the results inconclusive?
The experiments are inconclusive and I've stated why.
You have done nothing to reaffirm your claims with verifiable facts. Your only explanations for stacking gas particles are flawed analogies.
Then accept it as that and make this your last post to me, as we have nothing else to say to each other.


 
The reason why they are flawed is because they utilize solid objects that are supposed to represent gaseous objects. This is beyond apples and oranges. This is like comparing apples to air, (which is literally what you're doing).
Yeah. I suppose the big plastic balls on sticks sat on professors desks are nothing to you as well, eh?
Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.
Quite frankly I'm bored of pointing anything out to you. You came in with the usual interest routine and now you're attempting the normal routine of trying your best to muddy the waters and along with your little posse of like-minded sewage makers, you're trying your best to make people believe my theory is nonsense.
Well it isn't happening and you will now have to go and get another name to come back and join in again with me because this name is done with.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 12:30:38 AM
Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.

I took a step sideways,  to resolve the same questions that you are asking.   First,  treat denpressure as an abstract theoretical physics that doesn't intersect with the real world, and then try and construct a self consistent physics based on denpressure.  Experimentally we know it doesn't work in the real world,  but that's irrelevant for now.

Ok,  on to my concept of stacking.    We have no gravity remember. 

But we do have ground,  which stops us from going in that direction,  which we will call down,  what keeps us on the ground and stops us going up is the stacked air above us, the stack resists us by pushing back, just as we push against the ground.    At least that's my current understanding.
I'd like it if you keep your mindset. You appear to be grasping it all, so why not just use it to go right down and deep as an exercise at least.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 12:36:55 AM
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 single top molecule down on the one below it?
Nothing is pushing that last molecule down because that last molecule sits against no more matter. A true vacuum. A blackness to our eyes and perception.
Basically that last molecule is pushed up as the very last strength the Earth cell has to push and ends up as a frozen  expanded molecule at the very top.
The only thing that molecule is doing in resting on the molecule below.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 01:13:46 AM
Even the most basic principles of gases and how they act state that gases do not behave in this way.
How about just telling me how they behave and use an analogy in a simple way to explain. If you can.

Have you ever made microwave popcorn? If you take the bag out of the plastic and cut it open, you see solid kernels. They are dormant, immobile. Let these represent clusters of particles in a solid state (because that is what they are). Get a second bag out of the box (the first one was ruined) and put it in the microwave for a few minutes. When it starts to pop, you will see the popcorn shoot out at all angles, smashing against the inside of the bag, expanding the total area occupied by the particles. This change in the kernels represents the particles going directly from the solid phase to the gaseous phase, also known as sublimation. In the moment they are in motion, each kernel exhibits many qualities of a gas particle. It is mobile. It expands to fill its container. Most of all, it achieves equilibrium when the bag is packed full of popcorn at high pressure. Another interesting connection is the fact that a gas takes up much more volume than a solid.

At least when I use solid particles to describe gaseous ones, they partially resemble reality.

 
I have no idea how you reached this conclusion outside of your own thought experiments. If gases stack in a way that has a measurable effect, there should be an experiment showing this effect. If an experiment cannot be performed or even devised, then you should abandon your theoretical ideas.
Yes there's experiments but none of which you are interested in or are even willing to grasp
If such experiments exist, why not pose one that we can all replicate? Is that not the point of this thread? Why have you been holding out on us?

Please  help me understand vacuums. You contradict yourself several times regarding vacuums. Do they exist? You claim a vacuum cannot exist in nature, yet you also claim that the upper atmosphere freezes as it meets the vacuum of space.
I've explained it all very simply and yet you pretend or simply can't understand it.[/quote]
You're right. I don't understand. You have said the following things about vacuums:
1. Vacuums absolutely cannot exist
2. On the opposite side of the ice wall, a vacuum may exist.
Which is it? You have not made your point 100% clear.


Do you have any proof of this? Or does the atmosphere "freeze" only in your thought experiments?
I'll leave that up to you to decide, to amuse yourself.[/quote]
Luckily for you I know that the ice dome cannot physically exist in the way you describe it. However if you cannot comprehend scientifically proven models, there's no helping you. Try and make solid hydrogen yourself, let me know how it works for you.

Please help me understand the ice dome. As I have shown, gases need to be under high pressure and incredibly low temperatures to freeze. Yet you have said that at the upper atmosphere has low pressure. Where does the high pressure necessary for solidification of upper atmosphere gases come from?
I don't think you can or want to be help[sic], seriously. I think your goal is to simply muddy the waters at best or you simply cannot comprehend simplicity.
I truly do want help understanding your model. I have found inconsistencies in your model that I deem necessary of addressing. I gave a reasoned explanation for why your ice dome cannot exist in the way you describe it. Do you not understand my explanation? Would an analogy help?

Please help me understand why you refute the experiments in this thread. Before the experiments were conducted, I asked you personally if you had any problems with the experiments. You claimed they were sound. Only after they have shown evidence against your fragile mindset do you give vague claims about inconclusiveness. Why are the results inconclusive?
The experiments are inconclusive and I've stated why.
I still don't see any reason why you can't pose your own experiment.

You have done nothing to reaffirm your claims with verifiable facts. Your only explanations for stacking gas particles are flawed analogies.
Then accept it as that and make this your last post to me, as we have nothing else to say to say to each other
Is this due to the fact that you can only use analogies to explain anything? Can you actually explain your model without the crutch of analogy?

Yeah. I suppose the big plastic balls on sticks sat on professors desks are nothing to you as well, eh?
Newton's cradle? I'm surprised you've heard of him.
Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.
Quite frankly I'm bored of pointing anything out to you. You came in with the usual interest routine and now you're attempting the normal routine of trying your best to muddy the waters and along with your little posse of like-minded sewage makers, you're trying your best to make people believe my theory is nonsense.
Well it isn't happening and you will now have to go and get another name to come back and join in again with me because this name is done with.
Typical flat earth response. I gave you reasoned arguments as to why your model cannot work but you cannot defend it, so you slink off and ignore I said anything at all. That's fine, you can shrug me off if you want, but don't expect to actually convince anybody that denpressure has anything to do with this universe.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: rabinoz on August 08, 2016, 05:22:48 AM
Quite frankly I'm bored of pointing anything out to you. You came in with the usual interest routine and now you're attempting the normal routine of trying your best to muddy the waters and along with your little posse of like-minded sewage makers, you're trying your best to make people believe my theory is nonsense.
Well it isn't happening and you will now have to go and get another name to come back and join in again with me because this name is done with.

If your hypothesis is so wonderful how is it that you can't convince any but a couple of flat earthers that there is anything in it.

Any more luck with the "WildHeretic" crowd? (http://www.wildheretic.com/forum/download/file.php?avatar=69_1449146107.jpg) They don't too thrilled with your ideas either!
Maybe everyone reading this thread should read the the "full story" on The Wild Heritic, My Earth hypothesis (http://www.wildheretic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71).

It's much more entertaining than the scraps from Sceppy's table we get here!
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 08, 2016, 08:01:56 AM

 
Yes there's experiments but none of which you are interested in or are even willing to grasp, because your goal is not to grasp, it's to attempt ridicule whilst basically wasting your own time and effort.


Apologies, I did not know there were other experiments to perform.  Please detail them or post a link and I'll run them when I get the chance.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on August 08, 2016, 08:04:05 AM
Ah, the tragedy of the Newcastle fan....
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: neutrino on August 08, 2016, 08:31:33 AM
WOW this thread is still alive!  ::)
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 10:40:17 AM
WOW this thread is still alive!  ::)
Of course it's still alive. It's alive for the purpose of those looking in to sift through and get a grasp of reality.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 10:50:55 AM
Of course it's still alive. It's alive for the purpose of those looking in to sift through and get a grasp of reality.
What reality? The one where you were proven wrong in 4 experiments that you yourself approved of initially? The reality in which you failed to give any reasoning to your thoughts of inconclusiveness? The reality in which you ignore the most basic principles of chemistry and physics? Is this the reality you are referring to? Because that is all that an outside observer will see.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 02:57:12 PM
Of course it's still alive. It's alive for the purpose of those looking in to sift through and get a grasp of reality.
What reality? The one where you were proven wrong in 4 experiments that you yourself approved of initially? The reality in which you failed to give any reasoning to your thoughts of inconclusiveness? The reality in which you ignore the most basic principles of chemistry and physics? Is this the reality you are referring to? Because that is all that an outside observer will see.
Nobody's proved me wrong and to be honest, you need to pipe down because you're absolutely clueless in terms of grasping it, so piping up with the crap you do is absolutely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 03:09:34 PM

honest, you need to pipe down because you're absolutely clueless in terms of grasping it, so piping up with the crap you do is absolutely irrelevant.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 08, 2016, 03:09:51 PM
Of course it's still alive. It's alive for the purpose of those looking in to sift through and get a grasp of reality.
What reality? The one where you were proven wrong in 4 experiments that you yourself approved of initially? The reality in which you failed to give any reasoning to your thoughts of inconclusiveness? The reality in which you ignore the most basic principles of chemistry and physics? Is this the reality you are referring to? Because that is all that an outside observer will see.
Nobody's proved me wrong and to be honest, you need to pipe down because you're absolutely clueless in terms of grasping it, so piping up with the crap you do is absolutely irrelevant.
Nobody has agreed anything you say is right...
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 03:18:47 PM

honest, you need to pipe down because you're absolutely clueless in terms of grasping it, so piping up with the crap you do is absolutely irrelevant.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?
I can't explain anything to you; you know nothing about the theory because you spent far too much time waiting to jump on it before you gave yourself a chance to gain any insight into it.
People like you will spend all your spare time parroting numbers and such of silly things like space fantasies and totally be devoid of using any logic on reality.

It doesn't matter how many different names you use, you still don't grasp it. lol
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sokarul on August 08, 2016, 03:22:10 PM
My videos show you to be wrong.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 03:24:59 PM
How come I weigh the same on an airplane as I do on the ground?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 03:25:55 PM
How come I weigh the same on an airplane as I do on the ground?
Have you weighed yourself on an aeroplane then?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 03:54:18 PM
How come I weigh the same on an airplane as I do on the ground?
Have you weighed yourself on an aeroplane then?
Yes. I have. Just for fun. I weight less when the plane leveled out at altitude, but then my weight went back to normal during cruising.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
How come I weigh the same on an airplane as I do on the ground?
Have you weighed yourself on an aeroplane then?
Yes. I have. Just for fun. I weight less when the plane leveled out at altitude, but then my weight went back to normal during cruising.
Did you have the scales in your satchel as you boarded or was there a special pocket in your parachute sack?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 04:00:44 PM
I had a cheap bathroom scale. With a little needle that pointed to the number that matched my weight.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 04:06:37 PM
I had a cheap bathroom scale. With a little needle that pointed to the number that matched my weight.
No you didn't. You mean you're testing out a cheap lie to me and I'm not buying your bullshit.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 04:14:05 PM
Fine. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 04:27:00 PM
Fine. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.
I have tested them and I had to reset the pointer to zero because it drifted.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 04:28:15 PM
Fine. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.
I have tested them and I had to reset the pointer to zero because it drifted.
No you didn't. You mean you're testing out a cheap lie to me and I'm not buying your bullshit.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 04:30:25 PM
Fine. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.
I have tested them and I had to reset the pointer to zero because it drifted.
No you didn't. You mean you're testing out a cheap lie to me and I'm not buying your bullshit.
You started it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 04:31:18 PM
Started what?

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 04:35:43 PM
Started what?
The lies. Now let that be a lesson to you.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 04:38:35 PM
When did I lie?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 05:52:36 PM

honest, you need to pipe down because you're absolutely clueless in terms of grasping it, so piping up with the crap you do is absolutely irrelevant.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?
I can't explain anything to you; you know nothing about the theory because you spent far too much time waiting to jump on it before you gave yourself a chance to gain any insight into it.
People like you will spend all your spare time parroting numbers and such of silly things like space fantasies and totally be devoid of using any logic on reality.

It doesn't matter how many different names you use, you still don't grasp it. lol
I know everything there is to know about the density-pressure theory commonly shortened to "Denpressure." Allow me to demonstrate what I know.

Denpressure refutes the unnecessary invented force of gravity. According to the model, density and pressure give objects the appearance of weight. This is caused by the stacked atmosphere, with heavier gases like Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide circulating at the bottom, and less dense gases like Hydrogen and Helium circulate toward the top. All of these gases exert force upon each other in all directions, but since the heavier particles have more weight and can therefore exert more energy upon the surrounding parties, they end up pushing the lighter particles with more force, effectively squeezing these particles to the top of the system. At the very top of the stack, the particles simply freeze into solids, forming an ice dome which completes the system.

Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 08, 2016, 08:48:51 PM

honest, you need to pipe down because you're absolutely clueless in terms of grasping it, so piping up with the crap you do is absolutely irrelevant.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?
I can't explain anything to you; you know nothing about the theory because you spent far too much time waiting to jump on it before you gave yourself a chance to gain any insight into it.
People like you will spend all your spare time parroting numbers and such of silly things like space fantasies and totally be devoid of using any logic on reality.

It doesn't matter how many different names you use, you still don't grasp it. lol
I know everything there is to know about the density-pressure theory commonly shortened to "Denpressure." Allow me to demonstrate what I know.

Denpressure refutes the unnecessary invented force of gravity. According to the model, density and pressure give objects the appearance of weight. This is caused by the stacked atmosphere, with heavier gases like Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide circulating at the bottom, and less dense gases like Hydrogen and Helium circulate toward the top. All of these gases exert force upon each other in all directions, but since the heavier particles have more weight and can therefore exert more energy upon the surrounding parties, they end up pushing the lighter particles with more force, effectively squeezing these particles to the top of the system. At the very top of the stack, the particles simply freeze into solids, forming an ice dome which completes the system.

Am I missing something?

I get confused about how you can have heavier and lighter particles, without gravity,  so weight needs to be replaced by something else,  can't be density since that carries an implied weight,  the closest I can come to anything that makes sense,  is all objects with mass have a resistance to being moved, some have more mass and interact with their neighbours more strongly either through friction or something akin to viscosity.

The more mass that gets squeezed into a small space the higher the "denspressure", and hence the more resistance to being moved.

It's closer to Aristotle than Newton.   


Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 09:19:46 PM
You are correct. When I say "lighter or heavier" particles, I am referring to the density of the particles, and the appearance of weight given to those particles when they are under pressure.

When you think about a particle like Oxygen (which usually forms a bond with 1 other oxygen atom, forming O2. These two atoms together have 16 neutrons and 16 protons, compared to Hydrogen's 1 proton and 0 neutrons. This makes a standard oxygen molecule more massive, which means it can exert more force on the hydrogen particle than hydrogen can exert upon the O2 molecule.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 08, 2016, 09:33:54 PM
You are correct. When I say "lighter or heavier" particles, I am referring to the density of the particles, and the appearance of weight given to those particles when they are under pressure.

When you think about a particle like Oxygen (which usually forms a bond with 1 other oxygen atom, forming O2. These two atoms together have 16 neutrons and 16 protons, compared to Hydrogen's 1 proton and 0 neutrons. This makes a standard oxygen molecule more massive, which means it can exert more force on the hydrogen particle than hydrogen can exert upon the O 2 molecule.

That's a good way of describing it.

So Let's try a few definitions.

1.  mass   = the amount of stuff.  We don't need to say anything about what the stuff is,  just that you can have more or less of it. 
2.  distance = length in normal 3 dimensional space.
3.  area  = distance squared
4.  volume  = distance cubed
5.  time = normal definition of time.

6. density  = the amount of mass per unit volume.   
7. Pressure = force per unit area.

Now how we define force is the next step,  I called it resistance to movement,  but I'm not entirely happy with that,
I don't think this can be F=ma, or F=mv....   

Any ideas?




Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 10:34:11 PM
No need to reinvent the wheel entirely. I believe Force=mass x acceleration still works in the denpressure model. I may have to think about this a while.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 08, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
No need to reinvent the wheel entirely. I believe Force=mass x acceleration still works in the denpressure model. I may have to think about this a while.

you are probably right. Your claim to fame is that you may have found the first and probably only, scientific principle that doesnt debunk denpressure.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 11:13:12 PM
 :'( :'(:'( scepti would be so proud :'(:'(:'(
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: fliggs on August 08, 2016, 11:14:27 PM
:'( :'(:'( scepti would be so proud :'(:'(:'(

Absolute, 100% proven failure is pretty hard to achieve. Even denpressure had to get something right.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 12:09:03 AM

honest, you need to pipe down because you're absolutely clueless in terms of grasping it, so piping up with the crap you do is absolutely irrelevant.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?
I can't explain anything to you; you know nothing about the theory because you spent far too much time waiting to jump on it before you gave yourself a chance to gain any insight into it.
People like you will spend all your spare time parroting numbers and such of silly things like space fantasies and totally be devoid of using any logic on reality.

It doesn't matter how many different names you use, you still don't grasp it. lol
I know everything there is to know about the density-pressure theory commonly shortened to "Denpressure." Allow me to demonstrate what I know.

Denpressure refutes the unnecessary invented force of gravity. According to the model, density and pressure give objects the appearance of weight. This is caused by the stacked atmosphere, with heavier gases like Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide circulating at the bottom, and less dense gases like Hydrogen and Helium circulate toward the top. All of these gases exert force upon each other in all directions, but since the heavier particles have more weight and can therefore exert more energy upon the surrounding parties, they end up pushing the lighter particles with more force, effectively squeezing these particles to the top of the system. At the very top of the stack, the particles simply freeze into solids, forming an ice dome which completes the system.

Am I missing something?

I get confused about how you can have heavier and lighter particles, without gravity,  so weight needs to be replaced by something else,  can't be density since that carries an implied weight,  the closest I can come to anything that makes sense,  is all objects with mass have a resistance to being moved, some have more mass and interact with their neighbours more strongly either through friction or something akin to viscosity.

The more mass that gets squeezed into a small space the higher the "denspressure", and hence the more resistance to being moved.

It's closer to Aristotle than Newton.
You are getting closer and closer to understanding what's happening.
They key words you use are the RESISTANCE to being moved.
Many people fail to grasp my theory because they simply go way past it by going straight into gravity mode or Earth particle mode, etc and do not use the different theory on what connected matter is.

When I said that ALL matter is connected with no free space, I meant it as exactly that. Once that bit is grasped then there's no need to ponder up and down or pressures upon dense objects, because it's all there for those who can get top grips with it.
Like  I said before, Jane is closest to grasping it and you are one of a few who are slowly but surely getting to grips.
I know none of you accept it but the fact that you're looking into it for your own inquisitive minds, is enough to potentially take you into another realm of theories, without any global bias, hopefully.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:50:05 AM
According to your theory regarding the interconnectedness of all matter, a thermos should not function. If you read the Wiki article about James Dewar, you would know that he invented the vacuum flask.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask

 Do you deny a vacuum flask exists? Test it yourself. Go to walmart or Amazon and buy a thermos. Doesn't have to be brand name, just make sure it is labeled as a vacuum flask.

When it arrives, make soup. Make sure it is hot and steamy-nobody likes cold soup!! Test the temoperature before you pour it in the thermos. Pour your soup into the thermos. Check it periodically with a thermometer. Record your results.

Now, take a drill bit and bore a hole into the side (you should hear a rush of air as the near-vacuum equalizes).

Now make more soup, and make sure the soup reaches  the same temperature as before. Check the temperature at the same time intervals. Record your results.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:08:51 AM
According to your theory regarding the interconnectedness of all matter, a thermos should not function. If you read the Wiki article about James Dewar, you would know that he invented the vacuum flask.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask

 Do you deny a vacuum flask exists? Test it yourself. Go to walmart or Amazon and buy a thermos. Doesn't have to be brand name, just make sure it is labeled as a vacuum flask.

When it arrives, make soup. Make sure it is hot and steamy-nobody likes cold soup!! Test the temoperature before you pour it in the thermos. Pour your soup into the thermos. Check it periodically with a thermometer. Record your results.

Now, take a drill bit and bore a hole into the side (you should hear a rush of air as the near-vacuum equalizes).

Now make more soup, and make sure the soup reaches  the same temperature as before. Check the temperature at the same time intervals. Record your results.
You've went through all of that and have no clue how the flask works, do you?
Don't read up on it, just explain what you think is happening with that flask that is under atmospheric sea level conditions.
Let's see how smug you are.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 01:27:51 AM
It's simple really. A vacuum flask is actually two flasks, one placed inside the other. They are joined at the neck of the container. The larger flask has been partially evacuated, creating a near vacuum. This partial-vacuum greatly reduces the transfer of heat via conduction or convection.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 09, 2016, 01:35:33 AM
If I understand your model correctly and there is no gaps between stuff ever.  Even in a very near vacuum.

Does the surface area of one molecule in a vacuum increase? 

If under your model it does a vacuum flask would not be that effective at reducing conduction.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 01:37:51 AM
It begs the question, what causes the particles to grow in size? Would liquid particles behave in a similar manner? What about solids?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:58:19 AM
If I understand your model correctly and there is no gaps between stuff ever.  Even in a very near vacuum.

Does the surface area of one molecule in a vacuum increase? 
Yes.
If under your model it does a vacuum flask would not be that effective at reducing conduction.
Why?

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 02:06:47 AM
If under your model it does a vacuum flask would not be that effective at reducing conduction.
Why?

Things that are touching transfer heat much better than things that are not touching. Have you ever held you hand close to a candle flame, but not touched it? Touch it, see if touching fire is actually hotter than not touching fire.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 02:13:15 AM
If under your model it does a vacuum flask would not be that effective at reducing conduction.
Why?

Things that are touching transfer heat much better than things that are not touching. Have you ever held you hand close to a candle flame, but not touched it? Touch it, see if touching fire is actually hotter than not touching fire.
But you are touching it. You're always touching it if you can feel the friction.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 02:18:12 AM
You are touching fire if you are not touching fire? Just because you can feel heated gas particles near the flame? Is this what you think? Sorry you were a little unclear.

By this logic, I am touching the sun if I can feel its warmth?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 04:09:14 AM
You are touching fire if you are not touching fire? Just because you can feel heated gas particles near the flame? Is this what you think? Sorry you were a little unclear.

By this logic, I am touching the sun if I can feel its warmth?

He did specify 'friction,' not that unclear.

One question for Scepti, though: when it comes to molecules expanding to fill up a certain environment, etc, are they constrained to a certain shape (eg, being balls of whatever size) or do they just take whatever shape is required?
If the former, the vacuum system makes sense: fewer molecules would actually still limit the amount touching the inner flask. Lots and lots of small molecules could, hypothetically, touch more than just the tip of one big molecule.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 04:20:40 AM
You are touching fire if you are not touching fire? Just because you can feel heated gas particles near the flame? Is this what you think? Sorry you were a little unclear.

By this logic, I am touching the sun if I can feel its warmth?

He did specify 'friction,' not that unclear.

One question for Scepti, though: when it comes to molecules expanding to fill up a certain environment, etc, are they constrained to a certain shape (eg, being balls of whatever size) or do they just take whatever shape is required?
If the former, the vacuum system makes sense: fewer molecules would actually still limit the amount touching the inner flask. Lots and lots of small molecules could, hypothetically, touch more than just the tip of one big molecule.
This is where it becomes a bit more hard to explain. It's simple enough but it's not at the same time.
Basically it's simple for me because I know what I'm thinking.
Trying to convey my thoughts to others so they understand is harder to do, except for the few like you who are really starting to grasp it.

Ok let's picture the jaw breaker i had as an avatar (remember that?) and picture the layers as super dense to more expanded matter to the outer shell.

The jawbreaker would actually depict the densest molecule or matter due to the layers that have to be peeled, for want of a better word. Basically peel by expansion of all layers pushing each one off, but as that peels off it doesn't just disappear. It forms another molecule and attaches with other like molecules that are doing the very same thing.

I'll leave this with you before I expand (pardon the pun) on this just so you're getting the gist of it. If not, just say and I'll try and make it simpler.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 04:43:50 AM
Ok let's picture the jaw breaker i had as an avatar (remember that?) and picture the layers as super dense to more expanded matter to the outer shell.

The jawbreaker would actually depict the densest molecule or matter due to the layers that have to be peeled, for want of a better word. Basically peel by expansion of all layers pushing each one off, but as that peels off it doesn't just disappear. It forms another molecule and attaches with other like molecules that are doing the very same thing.

I'll leave this with you before I expand (pardon the pun) on this just so you're getting the gist of it. If not, just say and I'll try and make it simpler.
I'll admit to thinking of molecules under your model as more like Russian dolls, just because that makes it easy to intuit how they'd combine/split (even if not literally true). Under high pressure, they'd want to occupy less space and form the jawbreakers/fill up the dolls, under low they can safely enter into their 'natural' state of spreading out.
There are obvious queries as to how the molecules combine to form jawbreakers, which you can definitely answer if you want to, but for the most part I'm more interested in the mechanisms resulting from the system. So, yep, happy to see the expansion, I think.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 05:50:46 AM

Under high pressure, they'd want to occupy less space and form the jawbreakers/fill up the dolls, under low they can safely enter into their 'natural' state of spreading out.
There are obvious queries as to how the molecules combine to form jawbreakers, which you can definitely answer if you want to, but for the most part I'm more interested in the mechanisms resulting from the system. So, yep, happy to see the expansion, I think.
What exactly are you struggling with as such, just so I can get a grip on it as I've been doing some work and lost all track.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 06:07:02 AM

Under high pressure, they'd want to occupy less space and form the jawbreakers/fill up the dolls, under low they can safely enter into their 'natural' state of spreading out.
There are obvious queries as to how the molecules combine to form jawbreakers, which you can definitely answer if you want to, but for the most part I'm more interested in the mechanisms resulting from the system. So, yep, happy to see the expansion, I think.
What exactly are you struggling with as such, just so I can get a grip on it as I've been doing some work and lost all track.

Initially, my main question was just related to the details of how the molecules expand: do they keep the same shape, or do they genuinely just increase as best they can to fill in the area? (I'm assuming the former, just being sure).

Actually, this is vaguely related to the filling-a-jawkbreaker issue, I think. If the molecules are, say, balls with one hole in, then it would make sense for high pressure to make some get slowly squished inside others, if they could take shapes other than the overall ball, and would similarly make sense for them to get expanded out. Though in turn, this would mean the molecules could expand to non-ball-like shapes, and the vacuum flask issue brought up earlier seems relevant as the few molecules left would expand and with no shape constraint there'd be no reason for the surface area connecting the inside/outside to decrease.
While if the molecules are trapped in a set shape (I'm using balls based on convention and the jawbreaker analogy, something similar would hold for each shape), regardless of size, then the flask issue would make sense, but the way they combine wouldn't so much, as you'd need them to shrink/grow at varying rates, and when one's inside another you'd need the inside one to shrink.
Unless they're all different shapes, but that seems less likely. Or they're cups, cup-shapes might work, if they were perfect hemispheres. Or less conventional means of moleules combining...

Ok, that's a lot of rambling/speculation. The gist is:

What shape are the molecules, or do they not have any constant, fixed shape? (Size notwithstanding).
How is it pressure would allow them to combine? Is there a special mechanism, or is it just based on one slotting into another?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 06:45:52 AM
Initially, my main question was just related to the details of how the molecules expand: do they keep the same shape, or do they genuinely just increase as best they can to fill in the area? (I'm assuming the former, just being sure).
If you use the washing up suds analogy, you can see how there's any amount of different shaped bubbles and looking closer you can see that none are a perfect sphere; more like a semi sphere or less than that.
Basically they're in varied shapes on the larger scale by eye. The reality of the smaller scale could be hexagon shaped but we won't go into that.

Anyway looking at the washing up suds, you know that inside each bubble are denser and smaller molecules as well as what is making up the larger bubble being even more molecules.
It's a massive infinite type molecule stack within a stack and so on.






Actually, this is vaguely related to the filling-a-jawkbreaker issue, I think. If the molecules are, say, balls with one hole in, then it would make sense for high pressure to make some get slowly squished inside others, if they could take shapes other than the overall ball, and would similarly make sense for them to get expanded out. Though in turn, this would mean the molecules could expand to non-ball-like shapes, and the vacuum flask issue brought up earlier seems relevant as the few molecules left would expand and with no shape constraint there'd be no reason for the surface area connecting the inside/outside to decrease.

While if the molecules are trapped in a set shape (I'm using balls based on convention and the jawbreaker analogy, something similar would hold for each shape), regardless of size, then the flask issue would make sense, but the way they combine wouldn't so much, as you'd need them to shrink/grow at varying rates, and when one's inside another you'd need the inside one to shrink.
Imagine having a hollow sponge type ball and many other sponge balls similar to it.
You push on ball into the other and then another ball into the other. You keep doing this until you literally cannot push another sponge ball inside.
That's the end of your energy force.
Along comes a weightlifter who manages to push quite a few more sponge balls into that sponge of yours. He has more energy force.

And so on and so on.
Ok, now to keep those sponge balls from expanding, they have to be under immense pressure, which they are in the weightlifters fist.
Now we need more energy to expand the hand that holds the dense sponge balls. If released with lots of energy applied then we have an explosion of sponge balls (molecules)  expanding out of the sponge ball but they would be hitting other like sponge balls and appearing to attach to them as half a sphere on half a sphere connected to half a sphere.
Think of a bramble or a raspberry.



 
Unless they're all different shapes, but that seems less likely. Or they're cups, cup-shapes might work, if they were perfect hemispheres. Or less conventional means of moleules combining...
You can never get a perfect sphere because all molecules/matter are always attached with no free space.

 

Ok, that's a lot of rambling/speculation. The gist is:

What shape are the molecules, or do they not have any constant, fixed shape? (Size notwithstanding).
No fixed shape because all molecules are moving. They are always agitating due to always pushing against each other in a resistance caused by all of them trying to expand against each other. The denser molecules/matter will expand into less dense molecules and push them up, creating heat.
The faster molecules are pushed up by denser molecules, the more friction is created, which means that you would see super expanded molecules in a friction burn that your eyes see as fire.


How is it pressure would allow them to combine? Is there a special mechanism, or is it just based on one slotting into another?
Let's take a tree trunk near a metal fence (for instance). At first the trunk grows up and out and gets thicker and more dense by the push from the ground into the atmosphere which is resisting that push into it.
The fence is now being pushed away and over time the fence becomes part of the tree. the tree pushes into it. It does this because the fence created a massive resistance to the trees push on it.
Molecules are the same. The tree and the fence are just a mass of more dense molecules than the atmosphere we stand in.

Feel free to keep digging if I'm not being clear enough.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 09, 2016, 09:57:24 AM
It begs the question, what causes the particles to grow in size? Would liquid particles behave in a similar manner? What about solids?

Which leads us to another can of worms: chemistry.  We can breathe on Mt. Everest(barely).  We can breath at the Dead Sea and in a Hyperbaric chamber.  Our bodies remain the same size yet the air molecules have changed size several times over again?  How are we metabolizing oxygen at this point? 

So we have to add chemistry to the list of sciences that are incompatible with Denpressure along with physics and relativity and probably a few others I can't think of right now.

Let's set aside the truth argument and go purely with practicality.  What the hell good is this hypothesis?  You have to ditch the material sciences that we used to build the modern world to embrace a hypothesis that nobody, not even sceptimatic, can seem to demonstrate how it describes reality in any observable fashion.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 10:29:08 AM
So, the raw 'stuff' that makes up molecules are essentially stretchy bits and pieces that are topologically identical to a disc (basically: can be made from a disc if you could stretch and crush and twist it however you wanted, the one thing you can't do is add or remove a hole, so you couldn't make a ball, nor could you make an annulus, but you could make any polygon or squiggle or cup...)
The molecules with more packed within them exert more force (and that does explain the vacuum flask case, I'd assume; the unpacked few molecules within, though the surface area remains the same, there's less potential without all that extra energy stored inside them).
And molecules always expand to fill empty space, so there would be no 'vacuum.'
Molecules require energy to expand, which they typically get as heat from the Sun, and if you apply pressure this energy becomes potential, all packed within other molecules, so the removal of that pressure allows the potential to become real, and they'll expand separately.

That's what I'm understanding at the moment.
If that's right, then related questions:
In their most basic, unpacked forms, are molecules the same 'size'? I know they can expand, but if you unpeeled them to be, say, discs of a set thickness, would the area be the same? (Thinking in terms of say, volume).
On a related note, is shape and what they contain the only way these molecules vary, or could you get charges etc, or anything else that could set one apart from another?
And finally, what is it that would distinguish, say, hydrogen from helium? (I'm not asking for a periodic table, that'd be silly, just an idea of what sets chemicals apart. is it just down to how many 'layers' are in the jawbreaker, or is there more to it, particularly if there were other ways to tell the basic-molecules apart).
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 10:42:00 AM
So, the raw 'stuff' that makes up molecules are essentially stretchy bits and pieces that are topologically identical to a disc (basically: can be made from a disc if you could stretch and crush and twist it however you wanted, the one thing you can't do is add or remove a hole, so you couldn't make a ball, nor could you make an annulus, but you could make any polygon or squiggle or cup...)
The molecules with more packed within them exert more force (and that does explain the vacuum flask case, I'd assume; the unpacked few molecules within, though the surface area remains the same, there's less potential without all that extra energy stored inside them).
And molecules always expand to fill empty space, so there would be no 'vacuum.'
Molecules require energy to expand, which they typically get as heat from the Sun, and if you apply pressure this energy becomes potential, all packed within other molecules, so the removal of that pressure allows the potential to become real, and they'll expand separately.

That's what I'm understanding at the moment.
If that's right, then related questions:
In their most basic, unpacked forms, are molecules the same 'size'? I know they can expand, but if you unpeeled them to be, say, discs of a set thickness, would the area be the same? (Thinking in terms of say, volume).
On a related note, is shape and what they contain the only way these molecules vary, or could you get charges etc, or anything else that could set one apart from another?
And finally, what is it that would distinguish, say, hydrogen from helium? (I'm not asking for a periodic table, that'd be silly, just an idea of what sets chemicals apart. is it just down to how many 'layers' are in the jawbreaker, or is there more to it, particularly if there were other ways to tell the basic-molecules apart).
I'm going to do a few diagrams of molecules in states of density/ compression/expansion and how friction would work.
I'll also do one that would show different elements, like the hydrogen and helium. It will be basic but will maybe give you a better understanding.

You're not doing too bad in what you said, although the disc part I'm not with you on.
 I'll try and do the little diagrams tomorrow. They will be particularly for you because I think only you out of the global Earth crew will sort of get it, whether you go with it or not.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 10:51:45 AM


Which leads us to another can of worms: chemistry.  We can breathe on Mt. Everest(barely).  We can breath at the Dead Sea and in a Hyperbaric chamber.  Our bodies remain the same size yet the air molecules have changed size several times over again?  How are we metabolizing oxygen at this point? 
Our bodies do not remain the same size. You think they do because you never think that our bodies expand.
A simple starter.
At a higher altitude your lungs expand much more to take in much more volume of atmosphere because your body is trying to equalise the pressure it was in. Basically you're acclimatising.
Why do you think your fingers swell up, etc?
It's your body expanding to equalise it's surroundings.
You are no different to the balloon in a chamber as the pressure is lowered. You see the balloon expand.

So we have to add chemistry to the list of sciences that are incompatible with Denpressure along with physics and relativity and probably a few others I can't think of right now.
Everything is compatible with denpressure. Everything that works in reality.
The only things that aren't are the bullshit theories.


Let's set aside the truth argument and go purely with practicality.  What the hell good is this hypothesis?  You have to ditch the material sciences that we used to build the modern world to embrace a hypothesis that nobody, not even sceptimatic, can seem to demonstrate how it describes reality in any observable fashion.
We built the modern world because of denpressure. That's the reality. the only issue is they changed what atmospheric pressure upon density does to gravity and mass on mass.
They done this because denpressure does not cater for a lot of bullshit they wanted to feed us...including fantasy space and whatnot.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 10:53:13 AM
I like the soap suds analogy. It ensures zero empty space between bubbles (particles). If you think about particles having a rigid shape (be it spheres or what have you) then there will be empty space, even if two particles are touching. Think about a gumball machine. All the gumballs are touching, but since they are rounded off there is empty space between them.

Now back to the thermos. If, inside the thermos, the gas particles are connected in this way, they would transmit heat more efficiently than if there were particles that are a constant size with empty space between.

To explain this concept, think about an electric heating element, like an electric stove top. Heat up the stove to high heat, until you can see the coil turn red. Hold your hand over the range, but don't touch it. In both models, gas particles are heated, increasing the air pressure directly above the stove. This increased pressure pushes the heated particles outward in all directions. When these hot particles touch your hand, they generate friction, and you feel heat.

Now physically touch the red-hot stovetop. Since you are directly touching it, without the air to buffer some of the heat energy, your hand will receive much more of the heat energy than if you hadn't touched it at all. Therefore, to efficiently cook your hand, you must apply it directly to the heat source.

Another analogy would be a campfire. If you hold a marshmallow over the flame without touching the actual fire, it will gradually toast and turn brown. For a more direct approach, stick the marshmallow directly into the fire. It will get hotter, faster.

Compare these principles to the thermos. In the denpressure model, the air expands to physically fill every bit of empty space. Since each particle is directly touching each other, heat conducts more efficiently. In the RE model, particles have empty space in between them (especially in a partial-vacuum), meaning heat will diffuse less efficiently.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 11:04:08 AM
I'm going to do a few diagrams of molecules in states of density/ compression/expansion and how friction would work.
I'll also do one that would show different elements, like the hydrogen and helium. It will be basic but will maybe give you a better understanding.

You're not doing too bad in what you said, although the disc part I'm not with you on.
 I'll try and do the little diagrams tomorrow. They will be particularly for you because I think only you out of the global Earth crew will sort of get it, whether you go with it or not.

Yeah, probably shouldn't have brought topology into it. the idea was basically that every molecule, if it's of that sponge-ball-with-a-hole type shape can be contorted to give a flat disc, just as it can be contorted to give hexagons and all manner of shapes, but couldn't give, say, a tube (because you'd either need to poke a new hole in it, or seal two sides together).

Thank you for the diagrams, then, I look forward to them.
I think my only question that can't be answered by diagram ought to be a quick one, just yes or no. In their most basic state (all unpeeled etc), is there any way to distinguish a molecule from another?
Given shape can easily vary, I was just wondering if some molecules were naturally heavier (even if unpeeled), or had any other defining characteristics.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 11:09:11 AM
They done this [sic] because denpressure does not cater for a lot of bullshit they wanted to feed us...including fantasy space and whatnot.

How do you know phase diagrams of helium and hydrogen are bullshit if you haven't even studied them? To be a scientist is to be open minded. It seems as though you have your mind made up already.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 09, 2016, 11:16:17 AM
Yeah, how does helium become a solid at the top? There is no way for it to happen at 0 pressure.

(http://ltl.tkk.fi/research/theory/Phasehe3log.gif)
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 11:25:31 AM
I think my only question that can't be answered by diagram ought to be a quick one, just yes or no. In their most basic state (all unpeeled etc), is there any way to distinguish a molecule from another?
Given shape can easily vary, I was just wondering if some molecules were naturally heavier (even if unpeeled), or had any other defining characteristics.

It has been proven undeniably that hydrogen and helium tend to remain at high altitude. Given what we know about density, we can assume that these particles have less density than the particles that tend to stay near the surface (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide)

Since all atoms are made of the same 3 building blocks, we can assume larger particles can exert more energy than smaller ones.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 11:27:25 AM
I like the soap suds analogy. It ensures zero empty space between bubbles (particles). If you think about particles having a rigid shape (be it spheres or what have you) then there will be empty space, even if two particles are touching. Think about a gumball machine. All the gumballs are touching, but since they are rounded off there is empty space between them.

Now back to the thermos. If, inside the thermos, the gas particles are connected in this way, they would transmit heat more efficiently than if there were particles that are a constant size with empty space between.
Empty space cannot happen. It just can't, but anyway.
The expanded molecules in my model are under much less compression in the thermos wall gap.
This means they are not giving rise to much friction. They simply don't need to because they are much less of matter and much more expanded and so much weaker in vibration/friction and the frequency of it.
Add a silver reflector to that and you cover all avenues of convection, conduction and radiation.



To explain this concept, think about an electric heating element, like an electric stove top. Heat up the stove to high heat, until you can see the coil turn red. Hold your hand over the range, but don't touch it. In both models, gas particles are heated, increasing the air pressure directly above the stove. This increased pressure pushes the heated particles outward in all directions. When these hot particles touch your hand, they generate friction, and you feel heat.
Yep because the energy of the ring is expanding dense atmosphere and causing more dense atmosphere to squeeze back to equalise and in doing so it also becomes expanded and is squeezed up quite fast depending on the amount of energy applied from the ring.
Put your hand there and you stop the expanded molecules which build up and create a pressure against your palm. the super agitation of the molecules is your palm being atmospherically friction burned. It's like someone lightly sanding your palm and your palm adding coolant (sweat) to keep it bearable.

Now physically touch the red-hot stovetop. Since you are directly touching it, without the air to buffer some of the heat energy, your hand will receive much more of the heat energy than if you hadn't touched it at all. Therefore, to efficiently cook your hand, you must apply it directly to the heat source.
Yep, just the same energy but this time not allowing that energy to have an inrush and squeeze of dense matter as well as your hands not being able to sweat. the end result is massive friction burning by super vibration.

Another analogy would be a campfire. If you hold a marshmallow over the flame without touching the actual fire, it will gradually toast and turn brown. For a more direct approach, stick the marshmallow directly into the fire. It will get hotter, faster.
Same as above.


Compare these principles to the thermos. In the denpressure model, the air expands to physically fill every bit of empty space. Since each particle is directly touching each other, heat conducts more efficiently. In the RE model, particles have empty space in between them (especially in a partial-vacuum), meaning heat will diffuse less efficiently.
Now think about a chamber where pressure is lowered until you can't hear a bell ringing in it. Why?
It's all about stopping pressure of friction/vibration to such a degree as to slow down energy flow.

Let's make this into a simple analogy.
Imagine sandblasting a metal sheet at high pressure. You soon have that sheet clean of rust but also you feel the warmth of it.
Now imagine replacing the sand with polystyrene balls and trying to do the same thing.. Obviously we know that the metal would still be rusted.

Now imagine in both those cases that power was agitating inside the cavity of the flask walls. The sand would carry the heat but the polystyrene would insulate it.

Try and look into that analogy very carefully.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 11:36:41 AM
I'm going to do a few diagrams of molecules in states of density/ compression/expansion and how friction would work.
I'll also do one that would show different elements, like the hydrogen and helium. It will be basic but will maybe give you a better understanding.

You're not doing too bad in what you said, although the disc part I'm not with you on.
 I'll try and do the little diagrams tomorrow. They will be particularly for you because I think only you out of the global Earth crew will sort of get it, whether you go with it or not.

Yeah, probably shouldn't have brought topology into it. the idea was basically that every molecule, if it's of that sponge-ball-with-a-hole type shape can be contorted to give a flat disc, just as it can be contorted to give hexagons and all manner of shapes, but couldn't give, say, a tube (because you'd either need to poke a new hole in it, or seal two sides together).

Thank you for the diagrams, then, I look forward to them.
I think my only question that can't be answered by diagram ought to be a quick one, just yes or no. In their most basic state (all unpeeled etc), is there any way to distinguish a molecule from another?
Given shape can easily vary, I was just wondering if some molecules were naturally heavier (even if unpeeled), or had any other defining characteristics.
The answer is actually no.


Now this is going to sound silly so I can't just leave it with a no.
Think about this.
If I gave you a ball of plasticine and asked you to construct as many different things as you can, you could build all kinds of things, right?
Now each thing would consist of one thing. One piece of matter.

Like I said, it sounds crazy and knowing what we all know, it doesn't bear thinking about as a minor thought. This is basically how it would come across with many people and who could blame them.

We are talking about density of matter. We are talking about  what makes hydrogen and helium so different?
Obviously science can cite " oh it's because of this extra molecules of blah blah"...you get my gist.

Go and take a look at a jellyfish.
We can't fathom out what the hell they are because they are in real basic form.
Hydrogen turns to water as a by-product.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 09, 2016, 11:39:59 AM
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 11:40:04 AM
They done this [sic] because denpressure does not cater for a lot of bullshit they wanted to feed us...including fantasy space and whatnot.

How do you know phase diagrams of helium and hydrogen are bullshit if you haven't even studied them? To be a scientist is to be open minded. It seems as though you have your mind made up already.
No, I haven't. My mind is going back over. I'm going right back to basics, because that's the onkly way to sweep bullshit back to where it belongs and can leave the sifted truth on the table for all those with a logical mind to see and hopefully those who are hypnotised by severe indoctrination from early age to present, can start to think more clearly.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 11:44:51 AM
Empty space cannot happen. It just can't, but anyway.

You have yet to explain how you know this. Have you examined particles and how they behave?

The expanded molecules in my model are under much less compression in the thermos wall gap.
This means they are not giving rise to much friction. They simply don't need to because they are much less of matter and much more expanded and so much weaker in vibration/friction and the frequency of it.
The notion that each particle has less matter is incorrect. Even though they expand, they should still have the same amount of matter. Would you say that a balloon has more or less matter when inflated?

Add a silver reflector to that and you cover all avenues of convection, conduction and radiation.

Don't know what you're talking about here. Elaborate please.

Yep because the energy of the ring is expanding dense atmosphere and causing more dense atmosphere to squeeze back to equalise and in doing so it also becomes expanded and is squeezed up quite fast depending on the amount of energy applied from the ring.
Put your hand there and you stop the expanded molecules which build up and create a pressure against your palm. the super agitation of the molecules is your palm being atmospherically friction burned. It's like someone lightly sanding your palm and your palm adding coolant (sweat) to keep it bearable.

Same as above.

Glad I understand your meaning.


Now think about a chamber where pressure is lowered until you can't hear a bell ringing in it. Why?
It's all about stopping pressure of friction/vibration to such a degree as to slow down energy flow.
I hope you realize a near vacuum explains the silence a bit better, but if not please consider the following analogy.

Let's make this into a simple analogy.
Imagine sandblasting a metal sheet at high pressure. You soon have that sheet clean of rust but also you feel the warmth of it.
Now imagine replacing the sand with polystyrene balls and trying to do the same thing.. Obviously we know that the metal would still be rusted.

Now imagine in both those cases that power was agitating inside the cavity of the flask walls. The sand would carry the heat but the polystyrene would insulate it.

Try and look into that analogy very carefully.
OK let's look at a similar analogy, using newtons cradle. We will still use polystyrene balls, but instead of sand let's use aluminum spheres. Both spheres will cause the final ball to move, but the aluminum one is more efficient at transferring energy.

Now, separate the balls so they are no longer touching. Does the final ball receive energy from the first ball? Only if you push it hard enough.

Hopefully this analogy perfectly describes the difference in the transfer of energy between the two models.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 11:48:59 AM
It has been proven undeniably that hydrogen and helium tend to remain at high altitude. Given what we know about density, we can assume that these particles have less density than the particles that tend to stay near the surface (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide)

Since all atoms are made of the same 3 building blocks, we can assume larger particles can exert more energy than smaller ones.
Building block wise, I don't think that's the case for this model. Lower-density has been pretty well defined though. I'm just wondering if there's more to it than that.

The answer is actually no.

Now this is going to sound silly so I can't just leave it with a no.
Think about this.
If I gave you a ball of plasticine and asked you to construct as many different things as you can, you could build all kinds of things, right?
Now each thing would consist of one thing. One piece of matter.

Like I said, it sounds crazy and knowing what we all know, it doesn't bear thinking about as a minor thought. This is basically how it would come across with many people and who could blame them.

We are talking about density of matter. We are talking about  what makes hydrogen and helium so different?
Obviously science can cite " oh it's because of this extra molecules of blah blah"...you get my gist.

Go and take a look at a jellyfish.
We can't fathom out what the hell they are because they are in real basic form.
Hydrogen turns to water as a by-product.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Doesn't sound silly at all (it's what I thought, just checking), I can definitely see how that one building block could give rise to all manner of things. A different amount of layers, different densities, would give different results and different properties. (I'm assuming shape isn't the relevant factor because we don't seem to observe chemicals changing dependent on the vessel they're in, or at lower concentrations).
So, yep, I'm with you (up to the jellyfish at least).

If you want to get technical, then there are a lot of questions as to what would give rise to those properties (eg: why would x number of layers react with y number of layers, but not z number of layers), but that's less relevant to denpressure and getting quite off-track, so I'll understand if you want to curtail that discussion here given how much else is going on.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 11:49:53 AM
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: origamiscienceguy on August 09, 2016, 11:52:34 AM
(http://www.mikeblaber.org/oldwine/chm1045/notes/Stoich/Equation/coeff.gif)

This is how hydrogen burns.

It follows the law of conservation of energy. Do you think it doesn't work this way?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 11:56:02 AM
The answer is actually no.


Now this is going to sound silly so I can't just leave it with a no.
Think about this.
If I gave you a ball of plasticine and asked you to construct as many different things as you can, you could build all kinds of things, right?
Now each thing would consist of one thing. One piece of matter.

Like I said, it sounds crazy and knowing what we all know, it doesn't bear thinking about as a minor thought. This is basically how it would come across with many people and who could blame them.

We are talking about density of matter. We are talking about  what makes hydrogen and helium so different?
Obviously science can cite " oh it's because of this extra molecules of blah blah"...you get my gist.

Go and take a look at a jellyfish.
We can't fathom out what the hell they are because they are in real basic form.
Hydrogen turns to water as a by-product.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

You are showing your ignorance of the RE model. First, Hydrogen is an element made up of hydrogen atoms. These atoms can form covalent bonds with other atoms,  making molecules.

The atoms themselves are different sizes because of the varying number of subatomic particles Protons and Neutrons (similar size & density) and electrons (negligable size and density).

You incorrectly guessed Science's answer for why hydrogen and helium are different, but you failed to give your own answer.

You make all these analogies, describing things you somehow know. You never cite sources. Am I to assume that you figured this out all by yourself? Can you not explain your reasoning?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:02:41 PM
Doesn't sound silly at all (it's what I thought, just checking), I can definitely see how that one building block could give rise to all manner of things. A different amount of layers, different densities, would give different results and different properties. (I'm assuming shape isn't the relevant factor because we don't seem to observe chemicals changing dependent on the vessel they're in, or at lower concentrations).
So, yep, I'm with you (up to the jellyfish at least).

If you want to get technical, then there are a lot of questions as to what would give rise to those properties (eg: why would x number of layers react with y number of layers, but not z number of layers), but that's less relevant to denpressure and getting quite off-track, so I'll understand if you want to curtail that discussion here given how much else is going on.

In the RE model, electric currents are described as freely flowing electrons. If electrons don't exist in this model, where does electricity come from?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 12:07:50 PM

If you want to get technical, then there are a lot of questions as to what would give rise to those properties (eg: why would x number of layers react with y number of layers, but not z number of layers), but that's less relevant to denpressure and getting quite off-track, so I'll understand if you want to curtail that discussion here given how much else is going on.
The scary part of it all for all of us arrogant (in the nicest way) humans is that we are merely nothing more than vibrations at frequencies, like everything Earth is and has to offer.
X number of layers react with Y number of layers  because different densities and frequencies of vibrations create entirely different things.
It's really hard to fully explain without it appearing nuts.

Back to analogies. It's like you going out in light summer clothes. You're a molecule by the way.
You then decide to wear heavy winder clothes.
Then you decide to wear a hat whilst nude.
Then you wear shoes and a hat with leather shorts.

And so on.
What does this show?
It shows attachment of different densities of molecules all taking a shape to our perception. We see the same molecules but they are just set out differently in infinite sizes by expansion and compression under frequency of vibration.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 09, 2016, 12:09:57 PM
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 12:10:53 PM
Doesn't sound silly at all (it's what I thought, just checking), I can definitely see how that one building block could give rise to all manner of things. A different amount of layers, different densities, would give different results and different properties. (I'm assuming shape isn't the relevant factor because we don't seem to observe chemicals changing dependent on the vessel they're in, or at lower concentrations).
So, yep, I'm with you (up to the jellyfish at least).

If you want to get technical, then there are a lot of questions as to what would give rise to those properties (eg: why would x number of layers react with y number of layers, but not z number of layers), but that's less relevant to denpressure and getting quite off-track, so I'll understand if you want to curtail that discussion here given how much else is going on.

In the RE model, electric currents are described as freely flowing electrons. If electrons don't exist in this model, where does electricity come from?
Electricity is simply friction burning. Newtons cradle shows you how it works.
Newtons cradle actually shows you why the speed of light is a load of baloney but we won't dwell on all this stuff.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 12:12:34 PM
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:18:01 PM
Basically that last molecule is pushed up as the very last strength the Earth cell has to push and ends up as a frozen  expanded molecule at the very top.
The only thing that molecule is doing in resting on the molecule below.

Let's me get this straight. The molecule at the top freezes in its most expanded state? This contradicts even the most basic principles of matter that you can observe yourself.

What is more dense? A solid? Or a gas? The solid, every single time. You are saying that any gas particle can freeze in its most expanded state? So the frozen particle is actually less dense than the gaseous one?

If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:26:13 PM
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!! I have asked you multiple times. Do you have ANY experiments that can verify ANY of your claims?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 12:29:30 PM
Basically that last molecule is pushed up as the very last strength the Earth cell has to push and ends up as a frozen  expanded molecule at the very top.
The only thing that molecule is doing in resting on the molecule below.

Let's me get this straight. The molecule at the top freezes in its most expanded state? This contradicts even the most basic principles of matter that you can observe yourself.

What is more dense? A solid? Or a gas? The solid, every single time. You are saying that any gas particle can freeze in its most expanded state? So the frozen particle is actually less dense than the gaseous one?

If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
Do you agree that everything on Earth is vibrating?
Whichever answer you give, explain why.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 12:30:36 PM
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!! I have asked you multiple times. Do you have ANY experiments that can verify ANY of your claims?
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 12:31:36 PM
Thanks Scepti, I think you've answered all my questions at the moment.

If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
What he's saying does make a sort of sense. not possible under conventional physics, but it's sort of the inverse of a known principle. You can get an object to be solid long after you've heated it enough to form a gas, simply by applying enough pressure. What Scepti's saying is basically that the opposite holds too; put an object under no pressure in such a cold environment, it'll freeze. Makes sense, as far as needing energy for movement goes.
Think of it in terms of the model being proposed, not what you're used to. First off, establish that the model is internally consistent, which it certainly seems to be. The next step is experimentation; making sure it matches reality.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
This is how experiments are determined: examining the contents of a model.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:32:54 PM
Basically that last molecule is pushed up as the very last strength the Earth cell has to push and ends up as a frozen  expanded molecule at the very top.
The only thing that molecule is doing in resting on the molecule below.

Let's me get this straight. The molecule at the top freezes in its most expanded state? This contradicts even the most basic principles of matter that you can observe yourself.

What is more dense? A solid? Or a gas? The solid, every single time. You are saying that any gas particle can freeze in its most expanded state? So the frozen particle is actually less dense than the gaseous one?

If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
Do you agree that everything on Earth is vibrating?
Whichever answer you give, explain why.

Please stop derailing the thread and answer my questions as best you can.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 09, 2016, 12:34:14 PM
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!! I have asked you multiple times. Do you have ANY experiments that can verify ANY of your claims?
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

Perhaps.  But we've provided you a lot of links to the science involved with gravity.  If there's any part part of physics or the scientific method that you're not grasping, there's a lot of smart people in this thread.  We'd be glad to help you learn it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:40:05 PM


If you can find a material that is more dense as a gas than it is as a solid, you will win a Nobel Prize.
What he's saying does make a sort of sense. not possible under conventional physics, but it's sort of the inverse of a known principle. You can get an object to be solid long after you've heated it enough to form a gas, simply by applying enough pressure. What Scepti's saying is basically that the opposite holds too; put an object under no pressure in such a cold environment, it'll freeze. Makes sense, as far as needing energy for movement goes.
Think of it in terms of the model being proposed, not what you're used to. First off, establish that the model is internally consistent, which it certainly seems to be. The next step is experimentation; making sure it matches reality.

I agree that, against a vacuum, particles can achieve very low temperatures. This could cause some particles (like Oxygen) to freeze. The problem is, even though it is frozen, it would be far more dense than gaseous oxygen. According to denpressure, the now frozen particle should plummet toward the surface.

This is assuming oxygen would be near the vacuum in the first place. Hydrogen, being much less dense, should be pushed upward at a much higher rate. Yet, to turn hydrogen into a solid that can form any kind of symmetrical shape, it needs to be at extremely high pressures (over 1 million atmospheres or 160 Gigapascals).
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 12:44:49 PM
no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.
That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

I think the purpose of this thread is getting away from you. Do you have any new experiments yet?

Hypothesis are great but without verifying it against reality you risk subjecting yourself to recto-cranial inversion.
Yeah, hypothesis is good. It's just not good when someone with it goes against the grain. It's absolutely fine for the mainstream though.

Yeah I know. It's peer reviewed and what not. It's dogma is what it is.

QUIT AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!! I have asked you multiple times. Do you have ANY experiments that can verify ANY of your claims?
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

Perhaps.  But we've provided you a lot of links to the science involved with gravity.  If there's any part part of physics or the scientific method that you're not grasping, there's a lot of smart people in this thread.  We'd be glad to help you learn it.
I have no doubt that you people are smart. I'm sure you're very intelligent in many ways.
This isn't about being just smart, it's about trying to see past one model that's been put on a plate and to look into another model that has potential, even if it's potential is tiny to you.

Jane's grasping it all way faster and miles ahead of you and others. She may not agree with much of it in terms of a reality yet or if ever but the point is, she's delving into it and trying to understand it all by trying to piece snippets together.

Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:50:03 PM
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

I grasp the concepts. I have demonstrated this. I even correctly answered questions about your model while you slept. Stop insulting people as though your intellect were so infallible. You are my peer, my equal. Treat me like it. Answer my question as best you can, let's see if I can understand it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 09, 2016, 12:53:33 PM
Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I don't think you understand the purpose of experimentation or this thread.  You assert a hypothesis, which is great.  It's good when people think outside of the box.  It help society make new ideas.  But we have to make sure this hypothesis actually describes reality.  This is where experimentation comes in.

Nobody is having trouble understanding your hypothesis.  What we're struggling with is coming up with a way to show that it describes reality.  That's what we need your input on.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 12:57:19 PM
Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I'm trying not to fight you on it, but you seem so arrogant and headstrong. You ask us to examine another model as an alternative, yet you show an elementary knowledge (at best) of the RE model. How could you possibly compare the two until you know them both to the best of your ability?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 12:59:15 PM
I agree that, against a vacuum, particles can achieve very low temperatures. This could cause some particles (like Oxygen) to freeze. The problem is, even though it is frozen, it would be far more dense than gaseous oxygen. According to denpressure, the now frozen particle should plummet toward the surface.

This is assuming oxygen would be near the vacuum in the first place. Hydrogen, being much less dense, should be pushed upward at a much higher rate. Yet, to turn hydrogen into a solid that can form any kind of symmetrical shape, it needs to be at extremely high pressures (over 1 million atmospheres or 160 Gigapascals).
Hydrogen at low temperatures would become solid. If memory serves, the point at which the dome forms is almost at absolute zero (due to distance from the Sun), so hydrogen would definitely be solid then.
There are a few ways the rest could work. Hydrogen freezing/falling/evaporating/rising in which case you would end up with a dome, just one constantly replenished. Or you'd have the full arc of the dome frozen and so supporting itself, meaning it wouldn't fall.

Quick query for Scepti, though: what is it that decides whether an element/compound is a solid/liquid/gas? Is it strictly a matter of density (assuming not as some liquids can be heavier than some solids, though that might just be down to porousness. Mercury comes to mind) or is frequency a factor too?
Energy can certainly alter the state, but at a constant temperature, what decides that A would be solid, B would be a gas, etc?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:03:55 PM
I can't verify anything to someone who does not grasp the concept.

I grasp the concepts. I have demonstrated this. I even correctly answered questions about your model while you slept. Stop insulting people as though your intellect were so infallible. You are my peer, my equal. Treat me like it. Answer my question as best you can, let's see if I can understand it.
Not nice is it?
If you want forum respect then earn it by being the respectful. And don't say you have been and also do not answer to this. Just accept what's been said to you and go from here.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 01:09:20 PM
Why do you keep trying to shut me out of the conversation? I am simply asking questions. If you cannot answer them, fine.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:12:35 PM
Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I don't think you understand the purpose of experimentation or this thread.  You assert a hypothesis, which is great.  It's good when people think outside of the box.  It help society make new ideas.  But we have to make sure this hypothesis actually describes reality.  This is where experimentation comes in.

Nobody is having trouble understanding your hypothesis.  What we're struggling with is coming up with a way to show that it describes reality.  That's what we need your input on.
And that's what I'm trying to help you on but I'm not going to just jump in head forst and tell you that one experiment will make it or break it.
I've been through that before with people and they were less than honest.

It becomes an attack fest.
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

It's entirely up to you. I'm not changing my stance because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.
The more I'm told I'm wrong the more I'll arrogantly defend it.
What I'd really like is for people to go deep into it like Jane is attempting to do.

The ball is in your court and anyone else who feels they want to grasp it. It's simple for an open mind but difficult when a mind has been saturated with all the indoctrinated mainstream methods and ways.

I'm not saying they're all wrong. I'm simply saying that the one's that are theoretical and peer reviewed and done so with dogma.
Anyway it's up to you.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:24:04 PM
I agree that, against a vacuum, particles can achieve very low temperatures. This could cause some particles (like Oxygen) to freeze. The problem is, even though it is frozen, it would be far more dense than gaseous oxygen. According to denpressure, the now frozen particle should plummet toward the surface.

This is assuming oxygen would be near the vacuum in the first place. Hydrogen, being much less dense, should be pushed upward at a much higher rate. Yet, to turn hydrogen into a solid that can form any kind of symmetrical shape, it needs to be at extremely high pressures (over 1 million atmospheres or 160 Gigapascals).
Hydrogen at low temperatures would become solid. If memory serves, the point at which the dome forms is almost at absolute zero (due to distance from the Sun), so hydrogen would definitely be solid then.
There are a few ways the rest could work. Hydrogen freezing/falling/evaporating/rising in which case you would end up with a dome, just one constantly replenished. Or you'd have the full arc of the dome frozen and so supporting itself, meaning it wouldn't fall.

Quick query for Scepti, though: what is it that decides whether an element/compound is a solid/liquid/gas? Is it strictly a matter of density (assuming not as some liquids can be heavier than some solids, though that might just be down to porousness. Mercury comes to mind) or is frequency a factor too?
Energy can certainly alter the state, but at a constant temperature, what decides that A would be solid, B would be a gas, etc?

Ok think of the dome. The very top would be frozen hydrogen//helium or whatever that has (like you mentioned) frozen. The outer skin is up against the true vacuum but the inner skin is still pushed into, albeit very weakly.
The thing is, weak at the top means nothing to us at the bottom.
the rest of the atmosphere is holding it up but as you say it's a replenishing system. It changes due to energy applied, as in the sun, as you say again.

Ok, so once that dome is expanded into again, we have the frozen gas to liquid gas or super fluid if you want.
Basically it can look like a sea up there and in truth, I believe there are many, just as I believe there are a few below our seas depending on where on Earth at depth they are.

So we're back to density build up. We have a drop off of ice through liquid or super fluid helium or hydrogen and a creating of a friction burn as the ice falls creating a gas which rises again unless it gets trapped enough to fall as a glowing ice ball or what we would term as a meteor.
I'm getting off track a bit there but it all ties in, in the end.

Obviously there's a lot more to it all.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:25:18 PM
Why do you keep trying to shut me out of the conversation? I am simply asking questions. If you cannot answer them, fine.
Learn to be a bit more civil and stop trying to belittle and I'll oblige you.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 01:25:24 PM
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

When will we talk about them? I have asked you multiple times why the experiments conducted herein would be inconclusive. You have not explained why you think this. The ball is in your court. We have all been waiting.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 09, 2016, 01:31:10 PM
Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I don't think you understand the purpose of experimentation or this thread.  You assert a hypothesis, which is great.  It's good when people think outside of the box.  It help society make new ideas.  But we have to make sure this hypothesis actually describes reality.  This is where experimentation comes in.

Nobody is having trouble understanding your hypothesis.  What we're struggling with is coming up with a way to show that it describes reality.  That's what we need your input on.
And that's what I'm trying to help you on but I'm not going to just jump in head forst and tell you that one experiment will make it or break it.
I've been through that before with people and they were less than honest.

It becomes an attack fest.
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

It's entirely up to you. I'm not changing my stance because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.
The more I'm told I'm wrong the more I'll arrogantly defend it.
What I'd really like is for people to go deep into it like Jane is attempting to do.

The ball is in your court and anyone else who feels they want to grasp it. It's simple for an open mind but difficult when a mind has been saturated with all the indoctrinated mainstream methods and ways.

I'm not saying they're all wrong. I'm simply saying that the one's that are theoretical and peer reviewed and done so with dogma.
Anyway it's up to you.

I've done all four of the experiments listed in this thread.  My results match others who have run them also.  Are we all being dishonest? 

Peer review is is not the same as dogma.  Peer review helps us escape the quagmire of dogmatism. 

An example of dogma would be refusing to ever change your stance no matter what.  An example of how peer review helps us escape dogmatism is if a group of people perform experiments challenging a dogmatic belief and create a consensus that a dogmatic belief is incorrect and that it should be defied and challenged.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:31:47 PM
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

When will we talk about them? I have asked you multiple times why the experiments conducted herein would be inconclusive. You have not explained why you think this. The ball is in your court. We have all been waiting.
Learn to take notice.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sokarul on August 09, 2016, 01:34:56 PM
You guys should really just ignore Sceptictank. The things he's claiming about chemistry are so incredibly stupid it's unbelievable. She cannot back up anything she claims. Just trolling.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2016, 01:44:17 PM
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

When will we talk about them? I have asked you multiple times why the experiments conducted herein would be inconclusive. You have not explained why you think this. The ball is in your court. We have all been waiting.
Still no news on proof lead and copper fall at different speeds.   No explanation why weight is the same whichever way the brick is on the scales with different surface areas exposed.  Simple stuff.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 09, 2016, 01:44:35 PM
You guys should really just ignore Sceptictank. The things he's claiming about chemistry are so incredibly stupid it's unbelievable. She cannot back up anything she claims. Just trolling.

Trolling?  I kind of wondered about that but I don't think so.  And I think this because of post #240 in this thread.  The balloon experiment was proposed.  In the US at least weighing air is a pretty standard experiment in grade school.  Anybody trying to come up with an alternate theory of gravity would be aware of it and would have a counter argument thought up in advance.  But in post #240 sceptimatic becomes completely unhinged like it never occurred to him that the balloon would be heavier.

So I think he's a true believer.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 01:45:54 PM
No explanation why weight is the same whichever way the brick is on the scales with different surface areas exposed.  Simple stuff.
No, there's an explanation, you've been given it twice now. Why is it every single thread I see you in, you're offering a question and then ignoring the response or any follow-up? It's beyond a one-off at this stage.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2016, 02:19:20 PM
No explanation why weight is the same whichever way the brick is on the scales with different surface areas exposed.  Simple stuff.
No, there's an explanation, you've been given it twice now. Why is it every single thread I see you in, you're offering a question and then ignoring the response or any follow-up? It's beyond a one-off at this stage.
please give a link, is the explanation accepted by all?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 02:27:18 PM
No explanation why weight is the same whichever way the brick is on the scales with different surface areas exposed.  Simple stuff.
No, there's an explanation, you've been given it twice now. Why is it every single thread I see you in, you're offering a question and then ignoring the response or any follow-up? It's beyond a one-off at this stage.
please give a link, is the explanation accepted by all?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805919#msg1805919

Just think in terms of buoyancy and displaced air.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2016, 02:43:08 PM
No explanation why weight is the same whichever way the brick is on the scales with different surface areas exposed.  Simple stuff.
No, there's an explanation, you've been given it twice now. Why is it every single thread I see you in, you're offering a question and then ignoring the response or any follow-up? It's beyond a one-off at this stage.
please give a link, is the explanation accepted by all?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805919#msg1805919

Just think in terms of buoyancy and displaced air.
buoyancy = density
displaced air = volume

Where next to explain how to calculate accrleration of falling materials and their weight related to current air pressure?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 02:47:13 PM
I'm not saying they're all wrong. I'm simply saying that the one's that are theoretical and peer reviewed and done so with dogma.
Anyway it's up to you.

Do you know what dogma means?

dog·ma
ˈdōɡmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

You yourself have claimed that denpressure is infallible. This claim is a dogmatic one.


Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 02:48:12 PM
buoyancy = density
displaced air = volume

Where next to explain how to calculate accrleration of falling materials and their weight related to current air pressure?
The buoyancy force is calculated, basically, by density*Volume*g (more or less, acknowledging the effect of porousness. Certainly of that essential form). That's just mass*g. Main shift is that density is the density of the object minus that of the air.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2016, 02:50:43 PM
buoyancy = density
displaced air = volume

Where next to explain how to calculate accrleration of falling materials and their weight related to current air pressure?
The buoyancy force is calculated, basically, by density*Volume*g (more or less, acknowledging the effect of porousness. Certainly of that essential form). That's just mass*g. Main shift is that density is the density of the object minus that of the air.
g being?  Do the units work out right in the formula above?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 02:51:43 PM
g being?
Are you kidding? You're trying to argue about what makes things fall and you don't know what g means?

As for units working out right, seriously, if you can't verify simple calculations why do you try to refute anything? mg is a very familiar term to me.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: inquisitive on August 09, 2016, 02:53:13 PM
g being?
Are you kidding? You're trying to argue about what makes things fall and you don't know what g means?
Yes, of course, acelleration due to gravity...
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 02:55:13 PM
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

When will we talk about them? I have asked you multiple times why the experiments conducted herein would be inconclusive. You have not explained why you think this. The ball is in your court. We have all been waiting.
Learn to take notice.
I have taken notice of nothing but your aversion tactics. I have asked you countless times to explain why the experiments discussed herein could be inconclusive. You have dodged the question at every turn, arrogantly touting that "I wouldn't understand," as if you were some sort of genius. Please dismount your high horse.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 09, 2016, 03:00:06 PM
@scepti

You continually claim people are just blindly accepting what we are told.  When people ask for evidence you avoid answering.  This is what people do when they do not blindly accept something someone tells them.

You seem very confident you are right, almost to the point it seems you are claiming to be infallible and can not be wrong about anything.  If this is the case you would have no problem answering what would prove denpressure wrong.  It is not saying it is wrong, just what would need to be true if it is.  Your answers to that question previously was something that would not either prove or disprove denpressure.  Your second answer was that there would be nothing if it were true would prove denpressure wrong.

This is not the behavior of someone with an open mind and truly seeking answers about the world around us.  It is not the behavior of someone who is truly secure about their belief.  It is the behavior of someone who is fearful and trying to insulate themselves to protect their world view.

If this is not the case can you please answer what would prove your hypothesis wrong?  It is a question many scientist have had to answer.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 03:06:08 PM
Yes, of course, acelleration due to gravity...
In the typical model, sure. Generally it's just a specific constant that measures the downwards force.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 03:10:05 PM
Why would the downward force be constant in different levels of air pressure?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 03:13:26 PM
Why would the downward force be constant in different levels of air pressure?

It wouldn't be, just like it isn't constant under RET either. mg is an approximation under both models.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 03:33:17 PM
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

When will we talk about them? I have asked you multiple times why the experiments conducted herein would be inconclusive. You have not explained why you think this. The ball is in your court. We have all been waiting.
Learn to take notice.
I have taken notice of nothing but your aversion tactics. I have asked you countless times to explain why the experiments discussed herein could be inconclusive. You have dodged the question at every turn, arrogantly touting that "I wouldn't understand," as if you were some sort of genius. Please dismount your high horse.
I already explained.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 03:36:38 PM
Please link to your explanation, I cannot find you saying anything about these experiments other than "you wouldn't understand"
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 03:46:34 PM
@scepti

You continually claim people are just blindly accepting what we are told.  When people ask for evidence you avoid answering.  This is what people do when they do not blindly accept something someone tells them.
The evidence is all around you and you have every opportunity to put it to the test but fail to do so.
I can't help it if you won't test stuff out. Pretending to is not testing, is it?

You seem very confident you are right, almost to the point it seems you are claiming to be infallible and can not be wrong about anything.
Yeah I suppose I am claiming to be infallible but not because I am. I'm doing it out of arrogance because you people display the exact same about your model and seem to stake a claim that it's correct because it's backed up by mainstream scientists.
I'm fighting alone or almost alone and I'm trying to instill a thought process into the minds of those that have a mind to go to alternative routes.
A few are doing just that.

  If this is the case you would have no problem answering what would prove denpressure wrong.  It is not saying it is wrong, just what would need to be true if it is.
I did answer and I said that a spinning globe would kill it stone dead. Prove a spinning globe and denpressure is no more.
Prove gravity and denpressure is no more.



  Your answers to that question previously was something that would not either prove or disprove denpressure.  Your second answer was that there would be nothing if it were true would prove denpressure wrong.
Well now you have my answers to stew on. Let's see what you got.

This is not the behavior of someone with an open mind and truly seeking answers about the world around us.  It is not the behavior of someone who is truly secure about their belief.  It is the behavior of someone who is fearful and trying to insulate themselves to protect their world view.
Considering I started off as a heliocentric and then a geocentric globe, to finally get to where I am, I'd say I have an open mind and a strong mind as well.
If this is not the case can you please answer what would prove your hypothesis wrong?  It is a question many scientist have had to answer.
Prove gravity.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 04:04:36 PM
Why would the downward force be constant in different levels of air pressure?

It wouldn't be, just like it isn't constant under RET either. mg is an approximation under both models.

Under the RET g is constant at sea level at the equator. We can see g forces follow an inverse square function as we gain altitude. We see fluctuations in g forces as we move away from the equator as well. Gravitational theory has well reasoned explanations for this. How does the denpressure model account for this?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 04:08:06 PM
Why would the downward force be constant in different levels of air pressure?

It wouldn't be, just like it isn't constant under RET either. mg is an approximation under both models.

Under the RET g is constant at sea level at the equator. We can see g forces follow an inverse square function as we gain altitude. We see fluctuations in g forces as we move away from the equator as well. Gravitational theory has well reasoned explanations for this. How does the denpressure model account for this?
Presumably, in a similar way. The height of the stack would determine the density of air: more dense, the more force exerted. Due to the dome, the further out you go the weaker the force will be, and the higher you go the weaker the force will be.
Sure, there are issues with approaching the southern pole/ring, and it's possible Scepti doesn't acknowledge the variation with respect to latitude, but even so the variation with respect to altitude has an explanation, so I'll still mark it above a lot of FE models.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 09, 2016, 04:27:16 PM

A spinning globe does not disprove denpressure.  If it does could you explain how?  Denpressure should work on a round spinning earth as well as a flat stationary one.

Evidence for gravity:

Things have been placed in orbits and sent through our system using the gravity model.

Things fall at the same rate in a vacuum.

Tides can be reliable predicted years in advance using the gravity model.

Gravitational waves were detected.

It has been measured over and over again for generations.

We can measure the gravitational pull between two objects.

The pull varies over different locations on Earth. This is the result of the Earth not being a perfect sphere with its mass perfectly distributed.

How about that things fall towards the center of mass.

So people do not have the answer to why mass attracts other mass, but they sure do understand enough that very reliable predictions can be made.  That is why Pluto was thought to exist before anybody ever observed it.  Astronomers noticed that the orbits of Neptune and Uranus were being affected by the gravity of an unknown object in the Solar System. They predicted when and where it should be and someone looked there at the right time. This was accomplished using the gravity model.

Directly above is what can be done if you are on the right track about something and got at least the very basics down.

Just curious what is your explanation for things accelerating at the same rate when dropped?  I assume you have seen videos of stuff being dropped in a vacuum.  Well under your model I guess stuff being dropped at the lowest pressure that can be achieved.

Why does drag decrease as a plane gains altitude?  Under your model the surface area of the air should be the same at any altitude and creating the same resistance to moving through it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 05:00:52 PM

A spinning globe does not disprove denpressure.  If it does could you explain how?
Denpressure should work on a round spinning earth as well as a flat stationary one.
No, because for denpressure to work atmosphere has to be stacked. It cannot be stacked on your spinning globe model because your globe has the atmosphere all around with no feasible foundation nor ceiling for the stacking.


Evidence for gravity:

Things have been placed in orbits and sent through our system using the gravity model.
So you've personally verified this or have you just accepted it's true?

Things fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
Are you going to cite the hammer and feather on the moon shenanigan? Please don't.
Are you going to use the rock musician turned professor, Brian Cox's video of a huge evacuation chamber for the bowling ball and feather drop shenanigan? Please don't.
So what do we have left?
Basically similar things will drop at similar rates to our eye and perception. It's been proved in many experiments that this is untrue but weirdly they're discounted, as in brainiac.


Tides can be reliable predicted years in advance using the gravity model.
They can be reliably predicted in what way? As exact heights at exact times or just merely high and low tides?


Gravitational waves were detected.
Explain how and what with and how you physically know.

It has been measured over and over again for generations.
Measured with what exactly?

We can measure the gravitational pull between two objects.
Again, tell me how you do this and what instruments accurately prove this gravity pull between masses?

The pull varies over different locations on Earth. This is the result of the Earth not being a perfect sphere with its mass perfectly distributed.
You seriously do not know any of this, do you? You're simply going on stories and explanations as to how it worked, right? If not, tell me physically how you know all of this?

How about that things fall towards the center of mass.
Tell me about this falling towards the centre of mass. What does this mean in terms of you standing in the middle of a field with a couple of bricks or whatever? Enlighten me as to how you see this centre of mass falling routine?

So people do not have the answer to why mass attracts other mass, but they sure do understand enough that very reliable predictions can be made.
Nobody knows why mass attracts mass but they know they can predict stuff from something they don't know. It sounds absolutely mental. Can you explain a little for me?



That is why Pluto was thought to exist before anybody ever observed it.
Another story, right?


Astronomers noticed that the orbits of Neptune and Uranus were being affected by the gravity of an unknown object in the Solar System. They predicted when and where it should be and someone looked there at the right time. This was accomplished using the gravity model.
Another story, right?

Be truthful. Your reliance on all of this is based on acceptance of story telling of people that have been put on a pedestal for you, right? If not then tell me how you physically know all of what you're saying?

Directly above is what can be done if you are on the right track about something and got at least the very basics down.
I can read stories and follow enough of it to parrot. It doesn't make the stories true.


Just curious what is your explanation for things accelerating at the same rate when dropped?
The only things that accelerate at the same rate when dropped are identical objects. All other objects differ but many cannot be readily noticeable at small heights.
You need decent heights and good quality video with good quality slow motion on the cameras.

In low pressure chambers you also need even better slow motion cameras to accurately see a perfect unison drop of two objects all the way to the bottom.




  I assume you have seen videos of stuff being dropped in a vacuum.
Nope.


 
Well under your model I guess stuff being dropped at the lowest pressure that can be achieved.
Yep, this is true.
Why does drag decrease as a plane gains altitude?  Under your model the surface area of the air should be the same at any altitude and creating the same resistance to moving through it.
You're obviously not taking full notice of my model.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 05:10:32 PM
Why would the downward force be constant in different levels of air pressure?

It wouldn't be, just like it isn't constant under RET either. mg is an approximation under both models.

Under the RET g is constant at sea level at the equator. We can see g forces follow an inverse square function as we gain altitude. We see fluctuations in g forces as we move away from the equator as well. Gravitational theory has well reasoned explanations for this. How does the denpressure model account for this?
Presumably, in a similar way. The height of the stack would determine the density of air: more dense, the more force exerted. Due to the dome, the further out you go the weaker the force will be, and the higher you go the weaker the force will be.
Sure, there are issues with approaching the southern pole/ring, and it's possible Scepti doesn't acknowledge the variation with respect to latitude, but even so the variation with respect to altitude has an explanation, so I'll still mark it above a lot of FE models.

False. Under the denpressure model, the highest gravitational energy should be directly under the highest point in the dome (the north pole) and should decrease gradually as you ml over away from the pole. This has not been observed in nature.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 05:13:19 PM
False. Under the denpressure model, the highest gravitational energy should be directly under the highest point in the dome (the north pole) and should decrease gradually as you ml over away from the pole. This has not been observed in nature.
Has been observed in the northern hemisphere. Most of FET gets screwy once you cross the equator though.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 05:42:38 PM
False. Under the denpressure model, the highest gravitational energy should be directly under the highest point in the dome (the north pole) and should decrease gradually as you ml over away from the pole. This has not been observed in nature.
Has been observed in the northern hemisphere. Most of FET gets screwy once you cross the equator though.

Oh ok. Well as long as it works for the northern hemisphere, it works for me. No further questions right?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 09, 2016, 05:50:22 PM

So basically any evidence you may not be entirely right gets dismissed automatically. With no need to look further into it or trying to conduct your own experiments to verify it. Just if it says you may be wrong it is lies.

Here is a feather and bowling ball being dropped in a 12 story vacuum chamber.

At normal pressure

very low pressure

If 12 stories is not a descent height what is?

What changes if these two things were dropped from higher?  Would one eventually begin to accelerate faster?

Is this video faked?  If so could you point out the evidence?

I have seen things dropped in a vacuum several times.  Even in a vacuum chamber my grandfather and I made in his shop.(He did most of the work since I was around 10 at the time)  It was only about 5x3 feet, but the lead weight and the piece of paper we crumbled into a ball accelerated at the same rate.

I dated a volcanologist in Hawaii and been there to see gravity measured more than once.  My understanding is the build up and decreased distance of mass below the surface would cause slight changes in measurements.

I tend to think a lot of FE's fail to recognize that throughout the various fields of Earth science they share and use the same models that come together rather nicely.  If they did not there would be errors noticed everywhere. 
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Slemon on August 09, 2016, 05:52:39 PM
Oh ok. Well as long as it works for the northern hemisphere, it works for me. No further questions right?
You're not going to get me saying that FET works, it doesn't, but denpressure does answer some questions. I just think it's silly to pretend FET doesn't have answers to the issues it can address, given how many issues there are overall.

There's also the possibility of the Sun having an impact, as it certainly would affect the energy in air molecules, so along its path and near its path molecules have more energy, increasing the buoyancy of objects as air molecules would more excitedly vibrate and crowd around them, providing extra resistance to the downwards force: meanwhile further from the Sun there's less resistance and the downwards force is greater. And the shape of the dome is irrelevant because there's very little change above where we are. I do remember reading something about the Sun's path having an effect by giving energy to the molecules it passes.
There's one possible answer (though I'm not certain it's accepted, I do recall something about the Sun's position that isn't in line with what you might think, though I don't remember the details so I don't want to say too much).
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 07:01:07 PM
I'm sorry if this has been answered before, but I don't think this question has been asked.

What keeps then sun and moon aloft in the denpressure model? In UA they have aerthic whirlpools keeping them aloft. Denpressure seems to suggest the sun and moon are less dense than air.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: JerkFace on August 09, 2016, 07:48:01 PM
I'm sorry if this has been answered before, but I don't think this question has been asked.

What keeps then sun and moon aloft in the denpressure model? In UA they have aerthic whirlpools keeping them aloft. Denpressure seems to suggest the sun and moon are less dense than air.

From memory,  they are reflections off the inside of the dome.  The actual light sources are elsewhere.


Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 08:31:57 PM
I'm sorry if this has been answered before, but I don't think this question has been asked.

What keeps then sun and moon aloft in the denpressure model? In UA they have aerthic whirlpools keeping them aloft. Denpressure seems to suggest the sun and moon are less dense than air.

From memory,  they are reflections off the inside of the dome.  The actual light sources are elsewhere.

So they originate from the earth's surface?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 09, 2016, 10:21:13 PM

So basically any evidence you may not be entirely right gets dismissed automatically. With no need to look further into it or trying to conduct your own experiments to verify it. Just if it says you may be wrong it is lies.

Here is a feather and bowling ball being dropped in a 12 story vacuum chamber.

At normal pressure

very low pressure

If 12 stories is not a descent height what is?

What changes if these two things were dropped from higher?  Would one eventually begin to accelerate faster?

Is this video faked?  If so could you point out the evidence?

I have seen things dropped in a vacuum several times.  Even in a vacuum chamber my grandfather and I made in his shop.(He did most of the work since I was around 10 at the time)  It was only about 5x3 feet, but the lead weight and the piece of paper we crumbled into a ball accelerated at the same rate.

I dated a volcanologist in Hawaii and been there to see gravity measured more than once.  My understanding is the build up and decreased distance of mass below the surface would cause slight changes in measurements.

I tend to think a lot of FE's fail to recognize that throughout the various fields of Earth science they share and use the same models that come together rather nicely.  If they did not there would be errors noticed everywhere.

I know the theory behind this but seeing videos like this, wow!  It just puts a smile on my face.  Science makes us a bunch of god damn wizards.

These people that go through life assuming it's all a lie... what a terrible way to live.   It's like assuming that every woman you meet is guaranteed to cheat on you.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Crouton on August 09, 2016, 11:59:41 PM

Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I don't think you understand the purpose of experimentation or this thread.  You assert a hypothesis, which is great.  It's good when people think outside of the box.  It help society make new ideas.  But we have to make sure this hypothesis actually describes reality.  This is where experimentation comes in.

Nobody is having trouble understanding your hypothesis.  What we're struggling with is coming up with a way to show that it describes reality.  That's what we need your input on.
And that's what I'm trying to help you on but I'm not going to just jump in head forst and tell you that one experiment will make it or break it.
I've been through that before with people and they were less than honest.

It becomes an attack fest.
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

It's entirely up to you. I'm not changing my stance because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.
The more I'm told I'm wrong the more I'll arrogantly defend it.
What I'd really like is for people to go deep into it like Jane is attempting to do.

The ball is in your court and anyone else who feels they want to grasp it. It's simple for an open mind but difficult when a mind has been saturated with all the indoctrinated mainstream methods and ways.

I'm not saying they're all wrong. I'm simply saying that the one's that are theoretical and peer reviewed and done so with dogma.
Anyway it's up to you.

Ahhh.  I see the problem now.  I've heard this kind of rhetoric before and it's not from scientists or students, people that are genuinely interested in learning.  I've seen this rhetoric from fundamentalist religions. 

Is it possible what you believe is a scientific hypothesis is in fact your personal religion?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 12:39:09 AM

So basically any evidence you may not be entirely right gets dismissed automatically. With no need to look further into it or trying to conduct your own experiments to verify it. Just if it says you may be wrong it is lies.

Here is a feather and bowling ball being dropped in a 12 story vacuum chamber.

At normal pressure

very low pressure

If 12 stories is not a descent height what is?

What changes if these two things were dropped from higher?  Would one eventually begin to accelerate faster?

Is this video faked?  If so could you point out the evidence?


I have seen things dropped in a vacuum several times.  Even in a vacuum chamber my grandfather and I made in his shop.(He did most of the work since I was around 10 at the time)  It was only about 5x3 feet, but the lead weight and the piece of paper we crumbled into a ball accelerated at the same rate.
I did say leave this out. It's a complete and utter fabrication.


I dated a volcanologist in Hawaii and been there to see gravity measured more than once.  My understanding is the build up and decreased distance of mass below the surface would cause slight changes in measurements.
Let's not start boasting about dating logical star trek employees.  :P


I tend to think a lot of FE's fail to recognize that throughout the various fields of Earth science they share and use the same models that come together rather nicely.  If they did not there would be errors noticed everywhere.
If measurements were done by simply using denpressure in the right way, then nothing changes. Everything is measured using my theory, is just disguised as gravity in order to keep alive a spinning globe in space and all the rest of the absolute gunk.

If you look deeper you can see that warped space time is merely just a reality of warping the space around us in atmosphere with any dense object. It pushes atmosphere out of the way.
Basically an iron ball held up will create a warped atmosphere by its push.


They've just turned it into space fantasies to keep alive all the junk you've been forced to swallow. And me, but I managed to free myself from it.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 12:40:14 AM
I'm sorry if this has been answered before, but I don't think this question has been asked.

What keeps then sun and moon aloft in the denpressure model? In UA they have aerthic whirlpools keeping them aloft. Denpressure seems to suggest the sun and moon are less dense than air.

From memory,  they are reflections off the inside of the dome.  The actual light sources are elsewhere.

So they originate from the earth's surface?
From within, yes.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 12:42:11 AM

So basically any evidence you may not be entirely right gets dismissed automatically. With no need to look further into it or trying to conduct your own experiments to verify it. Just if it says you may be wrong it is lies.

Here is a feather and bowling ball being dropped in a 12 story vacuum chamber.

At normal pressure

very low pressure

If 12 stories is not a descent height what is?

What changes if these two things were dropped from higher?  Would one eventually begin to accelerate faster?

Is this video faked?  If so could you point out the evidence?

I have seen things dropped in a vacuum several times.  Even in a vacuum chamber my grandfather and I made in his shop.(He did most of the work since I was around 10 at the time)  It was only about 5x3 feet, but the lead weight and the piece of paper we crumbled into a ball accelerated at the same rate.

I dated a volcanologist in Hawaii and been there to see gravity measured more than once.  My understanding is the build up and decreased distance of mass below the surface would cause slight changes in measurements.

I tend to think a lot of FE's fail to recognize that throughout the various fields of Earth science they share and use the same models that come together rather nicely.  If they did not there would be errors noticed everywhere.

I know the theory behind this but seeing videos like this, wow!  It just puts a smile on my face.  Science makes us a bunch of god damn wizards.

These people that go through life assuming it's all a lie... what a terrible way to live.   It's like assuming that every woman you meet is guaranteed to cheat on you.
Having your Brian Cox's and co fronting crap like this is akin to knowing all your girlfriends cheat on you. That's how blatant they are and it reeks.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: Woody on August 10, 2016, 12:45:55 AM
I know the theory behind this but seeing videos like this, wow!  It just puts a smile on my face.  Science makes us a bunch of god damn wizards.

These people that go through life assuming it's all a lie... what a terrible way to live.   It's like assuming that every woman you meet is guaranteed to cheat on you.

Ever time I have seen this conducted and everyone is told what would happen they are still amazed. I think it is because it is just so counter intuitive since day to day life heavier things fall faster.  It almost seems unreal not only watching a video, but watching it in real life. You can see it with the NASA personnel still being delighted by what happened.

Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 12:58:01 AM
I'm sorry if this has been answered before, but I don't think this question has been asked.

What keeps then sun and moon aloft in the denpressure model? In UA they have aerthic whirlpools keeping them aloft. Denpressure seems to suggest the sun and moon are less dense than air.

From memory,  they are reflections off the inside of the dome.  The actual light sources are elsewhere.

So they originate from the earth's surface?
From within, yes.
From within the earth's surface? From where does the light originate? Can we visit this location?

Ignoring the fact that we don't see this light source on the clouds on its way up from within the earth, how does the sun's energy reflect off of the ice dome without melting it?

Even you must agree that solid hydrogen and helium must be very cold, barely vibrating at all, and at the same time it is able to reflect all the energy needed to make the entire earth warm? To heat all the world's deserts? All of this immense heat was reflected off of the coldest possible particles?
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 12:59:34 AM

Don't fight me on it, just try and understand it for what it is and not for how it goes against the mainstream grain.

I don't think you understand the purpose of experimentation or this thread.  You assert a hypothesis, which is great.  It's good when people think outside of the box.  It help society make new ideas.  But we have to make sure this hypothesis actually describes reality.  This is where experimentation comes in.

Nobody is having trouble understanding your hypothesis.  What we're struggling with is coming up with a way to show that it describes reality.  That's what we need your input on.
And that's what I'm trying to help you on but I'm not going to just jump in head forst and tell you that one experiment will make it or break it.
I've been through that before with people and they were less than honest.

It becomes an attack fest.
If this topic interests you and you say you have an understanding, then get your thinking cap on and do some experiments that you think may have some bearing. Then we'll talk about them.

It's entirely up to you. I'm not changing my stance because I genuinely believe I'm on the right track.
The more I'm told I'm wrong the more I'll arrogantly defend it.
What I'd really like is for people to go deep into it like Jane is attempting to do.

The ball is in your court and anyone else who feels they want to grasp it. It's simple for an open mind but difficult when a mind has been saturated with all the indoctrinated mainstream methods and ways.

I'm not saying they're all wrong. I'm simply saying that the one's that are theoretical and peer reviewed and done so with dogma.
Anyway it's up to you.

Ahhh.  I see the problem now.  I've heard this kind of rhetoric before and it's not from scientists or students, people that are genuinely interested in learning.  I've seen this rhetoric from fundamentalist religions. 

Is it possible what you believe is a scientific hypothesis is in fact your personal religion?
I don't like the way you word it so I won't answer as people will misconstrue and have me down as some kind of god believer or some sort.

Try again using a different thought if you want a dig.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 01:09:27 AM
From within the earth's surface? From where does the light originate? Can we visit this location?
t originates from the centre of Earth and is projected onto the dome and back to us.


Ignoring the fact that we don't see this light source on the clouds on its way up from within the earth, how does the sun's energy reflect off of the ice dome without melting it?
it does change the dome. It's always changing from solid to super fluid and back. It's constantly on the move so is only sort of wiping as it goes, for want of better words.


Even you must agree that solid hydrogen and helium must be very cold, barely vibrating at all, and at the same time it is able to reflect all the energy needed to make the entire earth warm? To heat all the world's deserts? All of this immense heat was reflected off of the coldest possible particles?
Can you use a magnifying glass in the winter?
Imagine moving the dot of the sun around with your magnifying glass on an area on the ground.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 01:46:21 AM
It originates from the centre of Earth and is projected onto the dome and back to us.

Does it come from the north pole? Is that what you mean by center?

Ignoring the fact that we don't see this light source on the clouds on its way up from within the earth
I didn't mean for you to actually ignore this point because it is so obviously a flaw. If the light and heat is actually coming from the center of the earth and it reflects off of the dome, wouldn't clouds be illuminated from below?

it does change the dome. It's always changing from solid to super fluid and back. It's constantly on the move so is only sort of wiping as it goes, for want of better words.
What makes it move?

Why doesn't the atmosphere get heat blasted through the gaping 32 mile wide hole in the dome?

Can you use a magnifying glass in the winter?
Imagine moving the dot of the sun around with your magnifying glass on an area on the ground.

Your model does not describe a magnifying glass against a blanket of snow. It's more like a flamethrower against a very thin ice sheet.
Title: Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
Post by: sceptimatic on August 10, 2016, 01:59:14 AM
Does it come from the north pole? Is that what you mean by center?
The poles don't exist like you think.
[quote author=TheRealBillNye link=topic=67582.msg1808646#msg1808646 date=1470815881
 If the light and heat is actually coming from the center of the earth and it reflects off of the dome, wouldn't clouds be illuminated from below?
[/quote]No, why would you think that?

What makes it move?
Energy in the same way as what makes  a