Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

Very simply, you think that the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh.

Yes, the more pressure that is upon any mass withing in.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

This is dependent on how high the dome is above you.

Nope. Not al all and this is where I lost you but I think I get your thoughts.
You see, it look like you are implying that we live under the higest pressure. We don't. The highest pressure is what you know as the north pole. It's what's feeding the life giving energy (sun) but we won't go into that unless you want to.

The least pressure on us would be the furthest we could go to the ice dome foundation which would be elevated anyway, as the Earth isn't flat as a pancake, it's slightly concave, but nevertheless, let's move on.

Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

This explanation sort of works with mountains but it turns out that g doesn't seem to be exclusively dependent on elevation.

It dependent on the energy needed to elevate a mass/density.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

So when looking at the values of g around the world it is clear that if there is some physical barrier there, it is not making any sense as it pertains to your description of the dome because g is least at the equator and most at the poles.

As I said above.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

So denpressure was already resting in peace but even if we pretend that you have debate skills and pretend that by some miracle you've convinced us that it is real, it doesn't imply that there is a dome as you've described and it also doesn't even imply that the earth is flat. Actually considering the data, it looks more like a round object than anything else.

Denp4ressure is never resting in peace, it's always there however minute.

So not really a dome then. So if we took a map of the values of g we would essentially be mapping the contours of the ceiling of the ice dome canopy and it just so happens to be slightly shorter all around the equator for no apparent reason at all? Is this your revision?

Also, presuming this is true would you say that a map showing values of g around the world would show some sort of relationship with a map showing the average values of pressure around the world?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2014, 12:18:04 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

Very simply, you think that the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh.

Yes, the more pressure that is upon any mass withing in.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

This is dependent on how high the dome is above you.

Nope. Not al all and this is where I lost you but I think I get your thoughts.
You see, it look like you are implying that we live under the higest pressure. We don't. The highest pressure is what you know as the north pole. It's what's feeding the life giving energy (sun) but we won't go into that unless you want to.

The least pressure on us would be the furthest we could go to the ice dome foundation which would be elevated anyway, as the Earth isn't flat as a pancake, it's slightly concave, but nevertheless, let's move on.

Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

This explanation sort of works with mountains but it turns out that g doesn't seem to be exclusively dependent on elevation.

It dependent on the energy needed to elevate a mass/density.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

So when looking at the values of g around the world it is clear that if there is some physical barrier there, it is not making any sense as it pertains to your description of the dome because g is least at the equator and most at the poles.

As I said above.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 11:48:25 AM

So denpressure was already resting in peace but even if we pretend that you have debate skills and pretend that by some miracle you've convinced us that it is real, it doesn't imply that there is a dome as you've described and it also doesn't even imply that the earth is flat. Actually considering the data, it looks more like a round object than anything else.

Denp4ressure is never resting in peace, it's always there however minute.

So not really a dome then. So if we took a map of the values of g we would essentially be mapping the contours of the ceiling of the ice dome canopy and it just so happens to be slightly shorter all around the equator for no apparent reason at all? Is this your revision?

Yes it's a dome. And I haven;t a clue about the rest of what you're saying.

Also, presuming this is true would you say that a map showing values of g around the world would show some sort of relationship with a map showing the average values of pressure around the world?

You already know the pressure vary around the world. They vary for human survival though, that's why we are circled from the middle inwards.

Quote from: inquisitive on November 28, 2014, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2014, 10:04:25 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 28, 2014, 09:59:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2014, 08:12:52 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 07:57:51 AM

Just had a thought.

Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?

So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.

Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.

What do you tell us about the two same shaped pieces of steel and brass.  Must weigh the same.

Start paying attention. I've never said brass and steel weight the same in the same shapes, so what are you talking about?

The pressure around them will be the same, can be measured.

No, the pressure around them won't be the same. I've explained all this. Look back.

Please provide your calculations and test results.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2014, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 28, 2014, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2014, 10:04:25 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 28, 2014, 09:59:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2014, 08:12:52 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 07:57:51 AM

Just had a thought.

Even if we were to humor scepti and say, "sure denpressure is what causes or is mistaken to be called gravity", does this have any effect on the earths shape? Could the earth not be round even if denpressure were real?

So many threads devoted to a theory that does not even suggest anything about the earths shape, even if it were true.

Well denpressure sort of kills off space as a whole, doesn't it?
You see, the made up gravity has to be responsible for stopping the globe falling into the big fire in space.
It also has to keep fantasy space craft in space. You need gravity or another similar made up concept to keep the globe intact. Denpressure kills it.

What do you tell us about the two same shaped pieces of steel and brass.  Must weigh the same.

Start paying attention. I've never said brass and steel weight the same in the same shapes, so what are you talking about?

The pressure around them will be the same, can be measured.

No, the pressure around them won't be the same. I've explained all this. Look back.

Please provide your calculations and test results.

Scepti - you have offered some explanation, true, but have not taken on my offer to measure both displacement of and pressure around objects of different densities. I'll do it as soon as you provide what denpressure predicts to result from those measurements.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 12:28:11 PM

Also, presuming this is true would you say that a map showing values of g around the world would show some sort of relationship with a map showing the average values of pressure around the world?

You already know the pressure vary around the world. They vary for human survival though, that's why we are circled from the middle inwards.

Yes pressure varies around the world but so does g. So will these two values have a proportional relationship or not? Presumably you would say yes since you think they are one in the same. As far all the rest of the stuff that I said before that, read it as many times as you need to get it. It's not difficult stuff.

 I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:





The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.

Scepti, the cradle video I posted esentially disproves your concept of weight as pressure, since a Newton's craddle works better at a vacuum than on the atmosphere. Please explain.

Here are the videos.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Goodbye denpressure

So another thought scepti. You said:

Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.

If this is the case and if two locations, say Japan and the United States are on opposite sides of the world (at least opposite side of the north pole) then how many miles apart would these two locations if one took a flight between the two of them. On a RE the distance is something like 6000 miles, but now that you've amended your theory for all the flaws I've pointed it out it seems that you not only need to add the distance required to go around the north pole but we also need to add 1000s of miles for this huge expanse of area that is your north pole. So what are we talking about now 10000, 12000, 15000 miles for this trip or what? These are absurdly large distances to ride in a plane for and I've not heard of any passenger jets that travel at the speeds required to account for this.

Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.

Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.

Problem is, that is probably the weight of the air that was evacuated. Even if it wasnt an error, it is coherent with RET (FinalWeight = InitialWeight - EvacuatedMass), but not Denpressure.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 04:28:24 PM

Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.

Problem is, that is probably the weight of the air that was evacuated. Even if it wasnt an error, it is coherent with RET (FinalWeight = InitialWeight - EvacuatedMass), but not Denpressure.

Agreed but I wanted to clear this up before scepti tried to say otherwise.

septic may be in need of some mates when this denpressure bullshit dies from natural causes. Think I have found him some.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2852829/Was-secret-manned-mission-Mars-1979-Former-Nasa-employee-claims-saw-suited-men-running-red-planet.html

I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:





The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.

I've brought up this point with him over at "gravity=air pressure" at around the sixth page if you want to check out his general response.

I wouldn't use maps like this, because he will probably redirect the argument into semantics about the credibility of the data on the maps. That's why I asked him to address a hypothetical experiment he could conduct using a weather balloon (to remove any possible variables at low altitudes) and a regulated pressure chamber.

I didn't get a very satisfactory response, and he never really answered my question but: he claimed that air molecules expand at lower pressures, and that's why gravity stays the same. Of course, he didn't provide any evidence that they do, so there's that. Here's something else relevant to this that he's said:

Quote from: sokarul on November 26, 2014, 07:25:42 PM

People who climb Mt. Everest must just float around at the top.

It takes energy to move a mass up a mountain. This energy becomes potential energy because it's being pushed into the ground, except this ground is now Everest. It's still under pressure by expansion and the atmospheric pressure will still push that mass to the gound if you remove the mountain.

So sceptimatic agreed earlier that "the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh".

Using that supposition, this means that if I weigh a tennis ball at ground level, and it weighs 95g and then take it to the top of an eighty storey building, it'll weigh only (say) 94.9g because of 288m less atmosphere above it.

Or am I missing something here?

Get your head around this septic.

 reduced gravity aircraft is a type of fixed-wing aircraft that provides brief near-weightless environments for training astronauts, conducting research and making gravity-free movie shots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_gravity_aircraft

Looks like your dunny pressure is MIA.

So sceptimatic agreed earlier that "the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh".

Using that supposition, this means that if I weigh a tennis ball at ground level, and it weighs 95g and then take it to the top of an eighty storey building, it'll weigh only (say) 94.9g because of 288m less atmosphere above it.

Or am I missing something here?

Yes, you apparently have not read the thread.

Scepti - you have offered some explanation, true, but have not taken on my offer to measure both displacement of and pressure around objects of different densities. I'll do it as soon as you provide what denpressure predicts to result from those measurements.

Here's something for you. What you are measuring today is exactly hat denpressure actually is.
The problem is, you are saturated in gravity and otehr bullshit.
All I'm saying to you is, grasp what I'm saying and you can go and do as many experiments as you want to in real time to gain a proof.
I'm not going to sit here and calculate this and that when people will never grasp the actual basics of what I'm saying.

There's no need for calculation until you are putting something to work, safely, in any walk of life.
Explanation and grasping of it, is key to understading. I'm not being funny, I'm being serious.
Try and undertsand what I'm saying because you're allowing scientific clap trap to mask over the basics I'm giving out and it will just confuse the hell out of you.

Look: you're not in college or uni, here. You can use this as an exercise in alternative thought. Discard the gravity crap for a while. Discard what you've been battered with from a young age and try and use this as a chance to gather these explanations to actually put into logical format.

The worst that can happen is that you have expended your time on something you decide not to go with.
The best that can happen is that you can actually start to see that the world is not what they sold to you, plus space.

That's the best I can offer.
If you decide not to take this up and would rather just go into ridicule mode...save your energy as you know where that gets people with me. Just saying.

Yes, you apparently have not read the thread.

Are you denying that sceptimatic said "the more atmosphere there is above you, the more things weigh"?

Quote from: neimoka on November 28, 2014, 01:31:15 PM

Scepti - you have offered some explanation, true, but have not taken on my offer to measure both displacement of and pressure around objects of different densities. I'll do it as soon as you provide what denpressure predicts to result from those measurements.

Here's something for you. What you are measuring today is exactly hat denpressure actually is.
The problem is, you are saturated in gravity and otehr bullshit.
All I'm saying to you is, grasp what I'm saying and you can go and do as many experiments as you want to in real time to gain a proof.
I'm not going to sit here and calculate this and that when people will never grasp the actual basics of what I'm saying.

There's no need for calculation until you are putting something to work, safely, in any walk of life.
Explanation and grasping of it, is key to understading. I'm not being funny, I'm being serious.
Try and undertsand what I'm saying because you're allowing scientific clap trap to mask over the basics I'm giving out and it will just confuse the hell out of you.

Look: you're not in college or uni, here. You can use this as an exercise in alternative thought. Discard the gravity crap for a while. Discard what you've been battered with from a young age and try and use this as a chance to gather these explanations to actually put into logical format.

The worst that can happen is that you have expended your time on something you decide not to go with.
The best that can happen is that you can actually start to see that the world is not what they sold to you, plus space.

That's the best I can offer.
If you decide not to take this up and would rather just go into ridicule mode...save your energy as you know where that gets people with me. Just saying.

More blah, blah, blah...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........     

Yes pressure varies around the world but so does g. So will these two values have a proportional relationship or not? Presumably you would say yes since you think they are one in the same. As far all the rest of the stuff that I said before that, read it as many times as you need to get it. It's not difficult stuff.

Well this is the key. Of course your gravity and denpressure appear identical. That's because they are, on Earth.
It's mainly space that the gazump comes in which makes people go with gravity and I understand that. It's not like I'm ridiculing people for believing this stuff. I used to myself. We all did.

We simply get told that things fall on Earth and it's due to gravity. We get told that the tides are due to the moons gravitational pull and the Earth being supposedly 4 times bigger, pulls on the moon whilst the sun pulls on the Earth but they never fall in due to their orbits, etc, etc.

Very few people give a thought to what reality could be as they take the fantasy for what's told without thinking, " wait a minute, let's look into this."
Of course, the simple answer to that is, ~" well shouldn't that tell you you're wrong if all other people think differently?"#
No. Because our lives have been dictated that way. We were all dropped down a one way tube of thought with no turning back. The lucky ones manage to push themselves back out and resist going back in whilst the rest are simply enjoying the long slide into their fantasy land at the end without realising tehre is no end.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume that you would in fact say that g and atmospheric pressure should have a proportional relationship. I have you on record saying multiple times that pressure is gravity so I'll just get on to my point which is in these 2 maps:





The top map is an average sea level pressure map for some month of July while the bottom map is a gravity anomoly map shown in mGals. Note that these two maps have virtually nothing in common. Nothing about the maps suggest that one is dependent on the other and furthermore, the pressure map would vary greatly in a different part of the year compared to the gravity map which fluctuates very slowly if at all.

They're just pressure charts.

Scepti, the cradle video I posted esentially disproves your concept of weight as pressure, since a Newton's craddle works better at a vacuum than on the atmosphere. Please explain.

Of course it works better in low pressure. Less resistance. Remember energy applied?
Have a think about it.

Here are the videos.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Goodbye denpressure

Why waste your time doing this stuff if you're going to not show exact stuff?
You're all over the place. Why?

I simply can't trust you. This is twice now and you are not showing anything that can be verified.

So another thought scepti. You said:

Quote

Where we live is the equator part and a little further towards the centre, not close to the centre, I mean many thousands of miles away from it.

If this is the case and if two locations, say Japan and the United States are on opposite sides of the world (at least opposite side of the north pole) then how many miles apart would these two locations if one took a flight between the two of them. On a RE the distance is something like 6000 miles, but now that you've amended your theory for all the flaws I've pointed it out it seems that you not only need to add the distance required to go around the north pole but we also need to add 1000s of miles for this huge expanse of area that is your north pole. So what are we talking about now 10000, 12000, 15000 miles for this trip or what? These are absurdly large distances to ride in a plane for and I've not heard of any passenger jets that travel at the speeds required to account for this.

No, it just means that they are closer in that circle and not at each end of it kind of thing.
Remember, the suns reflection is running around the middle of the Earth with Japan seeing it from their vantage point in rising and Anerica seeing it from their vantage point, setting is it moves closer and farther away around the circle, respectively.

Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.

Let's be fair. I know I'm fully against but seriously would something like that prove anything?
It doesn't to me.#
If sokarul has just decided to rush again without taking the time, then fair enough, I appreciate his effort anyay...but it's not proving anything ether way.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 28, 2014, 04:28:24 PM

Something tells me that 2/100 of a gram is enough to satisfy scepti.

Problem is, that is probably the weight of the air that was evacuated. Even if it wasnt an error, it is coherent with RET (FinalWeight = InitialWeight - EvacuatedMass), but not Denpressure.

I can't see enough of it to make anything of it to be honest.
If he wants to follow an exact instruction from me then I'll have a much better chance to see it.

septic may be in need of some mates when this denpressure bullshit dies from natural causes. Think I have found him some.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2852829/Was-secret-manned-mission-Mars-1979-Former-Nasa-employee-claims-saw-suited-men-running-red-planet.html

I'll hope that this was just you having a joke. If not, you have no chance of ever grasping anything.