Gravity = Air Pressure

Scepti stated in the balloon rocket thread that when we 'apply energy' to an object it gets warm, and compresses. In such small way that it can't be detected, but it does 100%, and that somehow explains everything.

if I pick up a brick, I am applying my energy to pushing that brick up into the atmosphere. Because I've done that, it means that brick pushes back onto me by the atmosphere it has compressed above me, or to put it plainly, the atmosphere it has displaced.
That brick now has potential energy through this happening, because it has to have a reaction to my action, which it will as soon as I release my energy from it.
From that point on, it gets pushed down and overcomes the push back (resistance).

So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential?  Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?


And if I go on a 10 mile walk and come to the edge of a cliff I won't have any "atmospheric potential" and, again presumably, I can just step off and float away.

Wait, compression is not the at all the same thing as displacement.  What are you trying to sneak in here?

I'm not sneaking anything in. The brick is sat on the ground. That brick has displaced the air it now sits in, through it's mass/density. If I pick that brick up, I now displace the air above me with that same brick and where the brick was sat, was filled with the same pressure I took from it.
That brick is compressing the air upward through it's own mass and my energy. The resistance to that brick falling when I stop raising it up, is my hand as a firm surface that can full resist it...but, in doing so, it's still using energy to keep it there.

If you are stuck, just let me know.

AKA Gravity.

AKA denpressure.

Scepti stated in the balloon rocket thread that when we 'apply energy' to an object it gets warm, and compresses. In such small way that it can't be detected, but it does 100%, and that somehow explains everything.

Any movement on anything will cause friction. Friction is heat, no matter how trivial it seems. it all works as part of moving nature. Nothing can move without it.
Just give yourself time to think about it.

If you are stuck, just let me know.

Yeah, like Jimmy, I do not understand what mechanism causes the atmospheric compression above the brick to maintain it's vector potential on the brick as you move perpendicularly to the vector. 

Can you explain that?

So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential?  Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?

If you are carrying that brick thousands of miles away, you are still using your energy to keep that brick on the atmosphere. the only thing that's changing is the atmosphere filling the vid your brick was in, constantly as you move as you are pushing that atmosphere out of the way and compressing it around the brick. You are also creating friction on that brick as long as it moves with your energy. It's so small that you aren't capable of noticing this.
So...wherever you stop - that brick still displaces the air with it's own mass/density and it is potential energy.

And if I go on a 10 mile walk and come to the edge of a cliff I won't have any "atmospheric potential" and, again presumably, I can just step off and float away.

Same thing applies as the brick. You have to walk into that environment, as in, you have to go UP, using your energy. You now become potential energy as in, you are forced back down when you step off that cliff because it's action and equal and opposite reaction. Your action in expending your energy to whatever height will not be transferred back to where you were until you allow it by giving up your energy, as in, you walk off the cliff.

See what I mean?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 09:45:24 AM

If you are stuck, just let me know.

Yeah, like Jimmy, I do not understand what mechanism causes the atmospheric compression above the brick to maintain it's vector potential on the brick as you move perpendicularly to the vector. 

Can you explain that?

Hopefully I just have, to crabby.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 27, 2014, 09:29:38 AM

So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential?  Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?

If you are carrying that brick thousands of miles away, you are still using your energy to keep that brick on the atmosphere. the only thing that's changing is the atmosphere filling the vid your brick was in, constantly as you move as you are pushing that atmosphere out of the way and compressing it around the brick. You are also creating friction on that brick as long as it moves with your energy. It's so small that you aren't capable of noticing this.
So...wherever you stop - that brick still displaces the air with it's own mass/density and it is potential energy.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 27, 2014, 09:29:38 AM

And if I go on a 10 mile walk and come to the edge of a cliff I won't have any "atmospheric potential" and, again presumably, I can just step off and float away.

Same thing applies as the brick. You have to walk into that environment, as in, you have to go UP, using your energy. You now become potential energy as in, you are forced back down when you step off that cliff because it's action and equal and opposite reaction. Your action in expending your energy to whatever height will not be transferred back to where you were until you allow it by giving up your energy, as in, you walk off the cliff.

See what I mean?

Please show how the pressure has been measured to prove it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 09:56:25 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 27, 2014, 09:29:38 AM

So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential?  Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?

If you are carrying that brick thousands of miles away, you are still using your energy to keep that brick on the atmosphere. the only thing that's changing is the atmosphere filling the vid your brick was in, constantly as you move as you are pushing that atmosphere out of the way and compressing it around the brick. You are also creating friction on that brick as long as it moves with your energy. It's so small that you aren't capable of noticing this.
So...wherever you stop - that brick still displaces the air with it's own mass/density and it is potential energy.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 27, 2014, 09:29:38 AM

And if I go on a 10 mile walk and come to the edge of a cliff I won't have any "atmospheric potential" and, again presumably, I can just step off and float away.

Same thing applies as the brick. You have to walk into that environment, as in, you have to go UP, using your energy. You now become potential energy as in, you are forced back down when you step off that cliff because it's action and equal and opposite reaction. Your action in expending your energy to whatever height will not be transferred back to where you were until you allow it by giving up your energy, as in, you walk off the cliff.

See what I mean?

Please show how the pressure has been measured to prove it.

Get a set of scales and weigh yourself. If the scales say one at a time please, consider going on a diet.

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.
This has been explained so how can't you get it?

You keep forgetting about the energy, I think.
To think that you people cannot understand this and yet rely on gravity, is astonishing. I could understand your reliace on gravity if there wasn't someone to explain how bogus it is, yet here I am - and you're hiding from the truth.

No. You just keep making stuff up every time someone says something that destroys denpressure. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 02:09:24 AM

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.
This has been explained so how can't you get it?

You keep forgetting about the energy, I think.
To think that you people cannot understand this and yet rely on gravity, is astonishing. I could understand your reliace on gravity if there wasn't someone to explain how bogus it is, yet here I am - and you're hiding from the truth.

No. You just keep making stuff up every time someone says something that destroys denpressure.

Nobody has or ever will destroy denpressure because it's the truth. Gravity has been destroyed and you don't like it, that's all.

Quote from: sokarul on November 27, 2014, 10:12:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 02:09:24 AM

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.
This has been explained so how can't you get it?

You keep forgetting about the energy, I think.
To think that you people cannot understand this and yet rely on gravity, is astonishing. I could understand your reliace on gravity if there wasn't someone to explain how bogus it is, yet here I am - and you're hiding from the truth.

No. You just keep making stuff up every time someone says something that destroys denpressure.

Nobody has or ever will destroy denpressure because it's the truth. Gravity has been destroyed and you don't like it, that's all.

It is neither a stretch nor derogatory to say denpressure is true in your mind only.  You can explain it as many times as you like but that does not make it true to anyone else anymore than me explaining the plot of the Lord of the Rings and calling it history.  All that counts is that you present some physical evidence that distinguishes your theory from gravity.

Is there an event you can predict that should occur if denpressure is true, but should not occur if gravity is true?  Do that and provide evidence of it occuring and I will be 100% convinced.

It is neither a stretch nor derogatory to say denpressure is true in your mind only.

I agree but I keep my arrogance on it as much as the gravity arrogance is kept by MSS world. If I firmly believe it by my own theoretical thinking, then I'm guarding it until someone destroys it. Nobody has yet.
My belief is that I have destroyed gravity. Your belief is that I haven't. Fair enough I say.

  You can explain it as many times as you like but that does not make it true to anyone else anymore than me explaining the plot of the Lord of the Rings and calling it history.

Agreed. All I can hope for is that it can be grasped. If not, then we keep on and on, or accept that nobody will give. I certainly won't and I don't think you will, either. That doesn't mean to say that everyone will follow the same path. You never know, you might surprise me in the future, who knows.

  All that counts is that you present some physical evidence that distinguishes your theory from gravity.

I believe I am but it's all about arguing the points just like gravity  is not understood but firmly adhered to, yet is backed by mass opinion so it's assumed it does not require any counter argument.

Is there an event you can predict that should occur if denpressure is true, but should not occur if gravity is true?  Do that and provide evidence of it occuring and I will be 100% convinced.

I'm trying to use as much as I can to show it but getting something concrete to get it through, is not easy when people's reliance on gravity is so strong. I have to leave it down to people to decide as time goes on.
I'm always thinking of concrete ways. It won;t go away.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 10:28:08 AM

It is neither a stretch nor derogatory to say denpressure is true in your mind only.

I agree but I keep my arrogance on it as much as the gravity arrogance is kept by MSS world. If I firmly believe it by my own theoretical thinking, then I'm guarding it until someone destroys it. Nobody has yet.
My belief is that I have destroyed gravity. Your belief is that I haven't. Fair enough I say.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 10:28:08 AM

  You can explain it as many times as you like but that does not make it true to anyone else anymore than me explaining the plot of the Lord of the Rings and calling it history.

Agreed. All I can hope for is that it can be grasped. If not, then we keep on and on, or accept that nobody will give. I certainly won't and I don't think you will, either. That doesn't mean to say that everyone will follow the same path. You never know, you might surprise me in the future, who knows.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 10:28:08 AM

  All that counts is that you present some physical evidence that distinguishes your theory from gravity.

I believe I am but it's all about arguing the points just like gravity  is not understood but firmly adhered to, yet is backed by mass opinion so it's assumed it does not require any counter argument.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 10:28:08 AM

Is there an event you can predict that should occur if denpressure is true, but should not occur if gravity is true?  Do that and provide evidence of it occuring and I will be 100% convinced.

I'm trying to use as much as I can to show it but getting something concrete to get it through, is not easy when people's reliance on gravity is so strong. I have to leave it down to people to decide as time goes on.
I'm always thinking of concrete ways. It won;t go away.

You have presented hundreds of thought experiments.  I mean something that we can do and measure in the physical world.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 10:40:23 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 10:28:08 AM

It is neither a stretch nor derogatory to say denpressure is true in your mind only.

I agree but I keep my arrogance on it as much as the gravity arrogance is kept by MSS world. If I firmly believe it by my own theoretical thinking, then I'm guarding it until someone destroys it. Nobody has yet.
My belief is that I have destroyed gravity. Your belief is that I haven't. Fair enough I say.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 10:28:08 AM

  You can explain it as many times as you like but that does not make it true to anyone else anymore than me explaining the plot of the Lord of the Rings and calling it history.

Agreed. All I can hope for is that it can be grasped. If not, then we keep on and on, or accept that nobody will give. I certainly won't and I don't think you will, either. That doesn't mean to say that everyone will follow the same path. You never know, you might surprise me in the future, who knows.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 10:28:08 AM

  All that counts is that you present some physical evidence that distinguishes your theory from gravity.

I believe I am but it's all about arguing the points just like gravity  is not understood but firmly adhered to, yet is backed by mass opinion so it's assumed it does not require any counter argument.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2014, 10:28:08 AM

Is there an event you can predict that should occur if denpressure is true, but should not occur if gravity is true?  Do that and provide evidence of it occuring and I will be 100% convinced.

I'm trying to use as much as I can to show it but getting something concrete to get it through, is not easy when people's reliance on gravity is so strong. I have to leave it down to people to decide as time goes on.
I'm always thinking of concrete ways. It won;t go away.

You have presented hundreds of thought experiments.  I mean something that we can do and measure in the physical world.

Well, sokarul is going to do one, so let's see what happens and we can go on from there.

And again today... another dozen absurd posts form the site's No. 1 troll.

You'd think that this sceptimatic tool would get bored with it wouldn't you... like any other 8-year-old kid with no new toys?  Let's hope Santa Claus brings him a new and different forum to infest with his nonsensical games.

Quote from: ocha on November 27, 2014, 06:16:32 AM

I just want you to answer this. If weight is an effect of pressure, and I weigh 80 kg at sea level, I should weigh 160kg 10 meters below the water's surface, 240kg at 20 meters... In mount everest top, at 8848 meters of altitude, there is an atmospheric pressure of 31kpa, so we should weigh around 24,5 kg.
Commercial aircraft flying at 11000 meters should weigh like a fourth part of their sea level weight. But of course, you won't believe the formulas for lift, drag and flight mechanics which are calculated for a plane with constant weight depending on altitude (weigh only varies with time for fuel consumption).

I have a few questions to your questions.

How do you weigh yourself when submerged?
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?

Should I elaborate for you?

How does a plane get into the sky?
How does a human being manage to swin down to 10 metres.
Answer these and you might start getting to grips.

I don't need to weigh myself. When I am submerged in water, I will slowly sink. This is because the CONSTANT force of gravity is partially countered by a buoyancy that equals (ρ · g · V), ρ being the density of water, g the acceleration of gravity and V my volume. This is easily proven with an easy experiment (I guess you believe in this equation, right?)  But according to you, I shoud sink faster the deeper I go.
A submarine at 200 meters depth would weigh 21 times as much as it does in the surface, and well, it should just sink, no buoyancy force can counter that.

A plane gets into the sky because of lift. The wing has a shape so the velocity of air in the upper part of the wing (I don't know its technical name in English) is higher than in the lower part of it. The higher velocity a fluid has, the less pressure it has. Then the "slow" air below will have a higher pressure and "push" the wing upwards. And Coandă effect makes the air stream stay "sticked" to the wing profile. Easy to see in a wind tunnel, I have seen it in my university. Please don't tell me you don't believe in lift either.

I would like to know what you understand by "energy applied".

And you answered none of my questions. I answered your questions with answers, and I'd like you to do the same.

Your trolling abilities are worse every time 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 27, 2014, 09:29:38 AM

So if I walk a mile away from where I picked the brick up from (ie away from this compressed atmosphere) it won't have any potential?  Presumably then when I drop it, it won't fall?

If you are carrying that brick thousands of miles away, you are still using your energy to keep that brick on the atmosphere.

But why do I need to use any energy?  Why can't I let go an watch it float off?  What is making that brick want to head towards the earth (ie down) rather than any other direction?  As air pressure gets lower as you move away from the planet, surely stuff should "fall" upwards if anything?

In your theory, what is so special about the down direction?

that atmosphere out of the way and compressing it around the brick.

Again, same point, so what?  Why then does it head down when I let go of it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 06:27:53 AM

Quote from: ocha on November 27, 2014, 06:16:32 AM

I just want you to answer this. If weight is an effect of pressure, and I weigh 80 kg at sea level, I should weigh 160kg 10 meters below the water's surface, 240kg at 20 meters... In mount everest top, at 8848 meters of altitude, there is an atmospheric pressure of 31kpa, so we should weigh around 24,5 kg.
Commercial aircraft flying at 11000 meters should weigh like a fourth part of their sea level weight. But of course, you won't believe the formulas for lift, drag and flight mechanics which are calculated for a plane with constant weight depending on altitude (weigh only varies with time for fuel consumption).

I have a few questions to your questions.

How do you weigh yourself when submerged?
Do you not have the mental capacity to understand what energy applied, is?

Should I elaborate for you?

How does a plane get into the sky?
How does a human being manage to swin down to 10 metres.
Answer these and you might start getting to grips.

I don't need to weigh myself. When I am submerged in water, I will slowly sink. This is because the CONSTANT force of gravity is partially countered by a buoyancy that equals (ρ · g · V), ρ being the density of water, g the acceleration of gravity and V my volume. This is easily proven with an easy experiment (I guess you believe in this equation, right?)  But according to you, I shoud sink faster the deeper I go.
A submarine at 200 meters depth would weigh 21 times as much as it does in the surface, and well, it should just sink, no buoyancy force can counter that.

A plane gets into the sky because of lift. The wing has a shape so the velocity of air in the upper part of the wing (I don't know its technical name in English) is higher than in the lower part of it. The higher velocity a fluid has, the less pressure it has. Then the "slow" air below will have a higher pressure and "push" the wing upwards. And Coandă effect makes the air stream stay "sticked" to the wing profile. Easy to see in a wind tunnel, I have seen it in my university. Please don't tell me you don't believe in lift either.

I would like to know what you understand by "energy applied".

And you answered none of my questions. I answered your questions with answers, and I'd like you to do the same.

Your trolling abilities are worse every time 

The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.

The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.

Typical scepti ignoring things he can't explain. Can you please tell me where I'm making up things? If I can't understand your hypothesis, you can help me understand it at least

The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.

Gee... that'll be a first in more than 10,000 posts!

           

But why do I need to use any energy?  Why can't I let go an watch it float off?

How can you let it go if you've not applied any energy? it means you can never pick the brick up in the first place if you do not apply energy to lift it's mass.
That brick is being pushed into th ground. To enable that brick to go into the atmosphere, it requires some kind of energy to do that. You supply that by applyng your energy to lift that brick against that atmospheric force pushing down on it. The fact that you done this means you are holding potential energy and as long as you hold it, that's all it is, until you release your energy by letting go, in which case the atmosphere acts on that brick's density by the air it's compressing by taking up that volume of air that you placed it in.

  What is making that brick want to head towards the earth (ie down) rather than any other direction?  As air pressure gets lower as you move away from the planet, surely stuff should "fall" upwards if anything?

In your theory, what is so special about the down direction?

The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.
Think of it like putting coins in a tube from the bottom. The first coins you put in are easy with your energy. As that tube fills up, the pressure upon your finger becomes stronger, meaning you have to use more energy each time you push up.
Eventually when the tube is filled, the coin at the top is resting it's potential energy on top of the other coin and so on and so on until the bottom coin is under the pressure of all the rest against the bottom of the tube which resists it all.

Now imagine that with atmosphere, then you in it. You push it out of the way with your body and that atmosphere pushes down on you, just like it will with a brick.
Now imagine picking up the brick. You compress the air above with every movement because you are placing the mass of that brick into that air and that air fills the void left by where the brick originally was.
If you contnued moving the brick up, it could be action/reaction until you stop. This is when the atmosphere is pushing down against your resistance (hand). Your energy stops it from happening until you leave loose and that potential energy now becomes energy against air resistance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 11:30:29 AM

The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.

Typical scepti ignoring things he can't explain. Can you please tell me where I'm making up things? If I can't understand your hypothesis, you can help me understand it at least

Ask me anything and carefully watch my replies. Keep asking and probing all you want and putting obstacles in the way and I'll reply.
Tell me that I don't know this and that as if I've actually said it and your answers won't be met other than to tell you to stop making out I've said stuff that I haven't. I'm trying to play fair. You do the same.

The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.

LOL..... sceptimatic still hasn't grasped the simple concept that on earth, there is no "up" and no "down".

He probably thinks if we drop a coin in Australia, it'll—somehow—fall in the same direction as a coin dropped in Canada.  He really has no idea that up and down are purely abstract terms, used locally as a matter of human convenience, but have no bearing at all whenever we're talking about gravity or planetary bodies or the sun.

His concept of anything abstract is remarkably limited, like a grade-school kid.  He seems to think in very concrete but subjective terms, with no understanding of anything he can't touch or see or hold.  Even basic hypotheses and simple theories are totally lost on him.  'Tis truly amazing methinks.

   

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.

LOL..... sceptimatic still hasn't grasped the simple concept that on earth, there is no "up" and no "down".

He probably thinks if we drop a coin in Australia, it'll—somehow—fall in the same direction as a coin dropped in Canada. 

   

Of course he thinks this, he thinks the Earth is flat.  If you believe the Earth is flat how could you conceive of coins falling in opposite directions in Australia and Canada.

Straw man... *facepalm*

Quote from: ocha on November 27, 2014, 11:42:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 11:30:29 AM

The sooner you stop making out I'm saying things I'm not, the sooner you will get answers.

Typical scepti ignoring things he can't explain. Can you please tell me where I'm making up things? If I can't understand your hypothesis, you can help me understand it at least

Ask me anything and carefully watch my replies. Keep asking and probing all you want and putting obstacles in the way and I'll reply.
Tell me that I don't know this and that as if I've actually said it and your answers won't be met other than to tell you to stop making out I've said stuff that I haven't. I'm trying to play fair. You do the same.

I asked how much more water a steel object displaces, than an aluminium object of same dimensions. And got blocked, now that's the way to debate, very fair play 

Nah. I asked you a series of questions. You ignored them, and answered with unrelated questions. When I answered, you ignored the answers too. But then you want us to believe you. You are doing it wrong

The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.

Is this 'upward pushing energy' a constant force emanating from the ground, or is it the just the act of lifting something?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.

Is this 'upward pushing energy' a constant force emanating from the ground, or is it the just the act of lifting something?

sceptimatic doesn't even know the differences between "force" and "pressure" let alone what energy is LOL.  He seems to seriously think that "energy" can, in and of itself, "push" against something.

He's also incapable of understanding a simple principle of mechanics that when you lift a ball into the air from the ground, you're changing its energy state from potential to kinetic—and when the ball drops back to earth and is stationary, it loses its kinetic energy.

One joule of energy =  the energy transferred when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or one 3,600th of a watt-hour).

I'm guessing that sceptimatic is confusing energy (joule) with force (newton).  Sad really.        But typical.

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 27, 2014, 01:22:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

The down direction is a direct opposite to energy pushing in the upward direction from the ground.

Is this 'upward pushing energy' a constant force emanating from the ground, or is it the just the act of lifting something?

sceptimatic doesn't even know the differences between "force" and "pressure" let alone what energy is LOL.  He seems to seriously think that "energy" can, in and of itself, "push" against something.

He's also incapable of understanding a simple principle of mechanics that when you lift a ball into the air from the ground, you're changing its energy state from potential to kinetic—and when the ball drops back to earth and is stationary, it loses its kinetic energy.

One joule of energy =  the energy transferred when applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or one 3,600th of a watt-hour).

I'm guessing that sceptimatic is confusing energy (joule) with force (newton).  Sad really.        But typical.

Energy can exert pressure and raising potential energy is entirely attributable to gravitational fields which he denies. Why in the world would he support that belief?