Gravity = Air Pressure

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:03:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 08:17:23 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 07:37:53 AM

Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?

All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.

Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.

Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.

This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.

Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?

Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 09:09:37 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:03:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 08:17:23 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 07:37:53 AM

Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?

All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.

Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.

Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.

This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.

Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?

Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?

The balls start off on a bottom plane. Energy was created to unhinge them to put their own density of displaced pressure into each environment which acts to push against that push, sending that density (ball) back to it's original place.

Energy used to move mass/density has to have an equal reactive force.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:39:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 09:09:37 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:03:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 08:17:23 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 07:37:53 AM

Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?

All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.

Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.

Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.

This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.

Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?

Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?

The balls start off on a bottom plane. Energy was created to unhinge them to put their own density of displaced pressure into each environment which acts to push against that push, sending that density (ball) back to it's original place.

Energy used to move mass/density has to have an equal reactive force.

Balls wont end up in original places in sideways. Use different balls or add number sticker to observe that. Each shake you get different results. Only thing that holds between experimentations is that they are at the bottom. So therefore why no symmetry?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 09:52:14 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:39:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 09:09:37 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:03:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 08:17:23 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 07:37:53 AM

Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?

All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.

Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.

Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.

This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.

Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?

Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?

The balls start off on a bottom plane. Energy was created to unhinge them to put their own density of displaced pressure into each environment which acts to push against that push, sending that density (ball) back to it's original place.

Energy used to move mass/density has to have an equal reactive force.

Balls wont end up in original places in sideways. Use different balls or add number sticker to observe that. Each shake you get different results. Only thing that holds between experimentations is that they are at the bottom. So therefore why no symmetry?

Because each ball is in a different place so one ball is going to take precedence over another by the position they are stacked in. Energy applied is going to  sort them into  a relevant order pertaining to how they were seated.

The only symmetry you would ever have is having two identical containers and two identical energy applications with two identical balls.

Speaking of denpressure, have you finally come up with a denpressure equasion Scepti?  If not then why not just use the gravoty equasion?  What makes denpressure a better tgeory if it can't even make predictions?  The ability to make predictions is the definition of a good theory you know.

Speaking of denpressure, have you finally come up with a denpressure equasion Scepti?  If not then why not just use the gravoty equasion?  What makes denpressure a better tgeory if it can't even make predictions?  The ability to make predictions is the definition of a good theory you know.

Heck yeah he did! I didn't save it, but I know a couple people did save it. It was amazing.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:59:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 09:52:14 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:39:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 09:09:37 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 09:03:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 08:17:23 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 24, 2015, 07:37:53 AM

Obviously objects are not against sealing but what then appears to re-instate the stacking of air? What force is doing that and why are these stacks always orthogonal to earth? Don't air have inertia at all when you turn the container around?

All things push UP. The atmosphere is due to energy pushing things UP.
The more that energy pushes stuff UP, the more stacking there is and the more energy needed to push against.

Now this is the interesting part here. What determines the UP after you start to rotate that container? How come the denpressure suggests that pressure layers in that container always keeps their ordering orthogonal to ground? Remember it's sealed. Not affected by the pressure outside.

Assuming someone rotated the ball into a spin then if you are in the very centre and balanced, you would go nowhere to the outer but probably rise up to the centre of the ball.
If you were out of balance, I.E you were a little off centre, then the rotation of the ball would force you towards the inner wall of that ball so anyone outside would see your face and body compressed against it.

This is neither here nor there though because the Earth doesn't spin.
The nearest thing you can try is to swim near a whirl pool and see what happens.

Now what happens if you stop the spinning of the container. Assume that spin with any axis. What causes the object end up at the bottom after things have settled? On sideways object can end up at seemingly random position. What breaks the symmetry on directions here?

Do an experiment. Put steel balls into water bottle and shake. You will observe balls dispersed along bottom plane. If you put oil into that bottle you can also witness how the layers are for a moment totally out of order. What in denpressure explains why liquids and balls prefers up/down direction when settling and why not left/right?

The balls start off on a bottom plane. Energy was created to unhinge them to put their own density of displaced pressure into each environment which acts to push against that push, sending that density (ball) back to it's original place.

Energy used to move mass/density has to have an equal reactive force.

Balls wont end up in original places in sideways. Use different balls or add number sticker to observe that. Each shake you get different results. Only thing that holds between experimentations is that they are at the bottom. So therefore why no symmetry?

Because each ball is in a different place so one ball is going to take precedence over another by the position they are stacked in. Energy applied is going to  sort them into  a relevant order pertaining to how they were seated.

The only symmetry you would ever have is having two identical containers and two identical energy applications with two identical balls.

That's not explaining why balls end up scattered at the bottom and not for example on side of the bottle and how the closed bottle retains the perfect order of pressure layers without any external forces after shaking.

Your description about dynamics of this system is much too vague and requires as lack of better word, faith into the fact that things settle differently in sideways but always to the bottom after shaking the system like it's the intrinsic nature of particles involved. Like rolling a dice you will get sixes billion times in a row. But yes you can create a theory as of this which would result perfectly suitable results from total chaos every time. It's possible but extremely unlikely.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 24, 2015, 10:55:32 AM

Speaking of denpressure, have you finally come up with a denpressure equasion Scepti?  If not then why not just use the gravoty equasion?  What makes denpressure a better tgeory if it can't even make predictions?  The ability to make predictions is the definition of a good theory you know.

Heck yeah he did! I didn't save it, but I know a couple people did save it. It was amazing.

He did, but later retracted it as the formula for Denpressure^TM. Good thing, too, because it wasn't actually a formula for anything; not least of all, the units of three terms in the formula were different, so they couldn't meaningfully be added together.

He was just trying to play word games and got caught out again.

Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?

If there is no such thing as gravity, then why would the rubber balls prefer the ground over the wall of the dome as a place to start stacking onto?  Why don't the balls stack from the top of the dome downwards?  If there is no gravity, then why would the balls stack at all?

I believe it was rottingroom who cornered specti to the point that he had to say that denpressure^TM is the force that causes itself. Even if scepti didn't say this explicitly, it was the usual scepti rhetoric in that he stated something along the lines of 'it's just the way it is, accept it'.

Utter brilliance from our resident genius. He accepts his own made-up drivel a priori and ignores the volumes of verifiable scientific tests that have been taking place long before he was even born.

Not only that, he also stated in the same thread that the equations used for Newtonian mechanics and gravity should be continued to be used because they work but are still based on lies. I found this hilarious because specti obviously didn't understand the implications of his general hand waving when he was being pushed about producing an equation for denpressure^TM.

So gravity works in the real world and can be tested and verified mathematically, but it's still false... for some reason.

And now, a Q for scepti: What is the difference between any of Newton's equations and, say, the equation for finding the volume of a sphere? Both work in the real world, after all.. so how come one is true and the others are false?

We can all agree that Air pressure is a known and measurable force that allows Airplanes to Fly and keeps Cars on the ground when driving.

We are denser than air and less dense than water which is why we float on water and fall to the ground.

Just think, the air pressure is strong enough to hold a giant airplane in the air. Airplanes certainly aren't equipped with top-secret anti-gravity devices, so why do we believe in gravity?

Air pressure can exert an equal downward force on all objects which would explain why objects of different size and mass fall at the same speed.

Does the equation for gravity account for Air pressure?

I don't think so...

You have your forces confused.  Planes fly because of a drop in air pressure due to the air movement across the wing.  Cars stay on the ground regardless of air movement.  If you want to see the force required for air to move a car, then you need to see a tornado in action.  Without extreme speed, air just doesn't have the mass required to behave as you are postulating.

Personally, I think the establishment is wrong about the source of gravity being a force of attraction which is generated by mass.  I believe it is a force of repulsion generated from the aether....which is primarily above, where the sun, moon, and stars are set in their orbits.  One experiment I would like to see, which may shed some light on the subject of gravity is, what is the force of gravity at the deepest part of the ocean.  If gravity is generated by mass, then it would definitely measure less than at sea level...due to the great mass of water above that area.  If my theory is correct, and water does not impede this gravitic force, then the measured force of gravity at the deepest part of the ocean would be even greater than at sea level.

Also....objects of different size and mass do not fall at the same speed.  If the objects have the same surface area distribution in reference to their mass....then they fall at the same speed.  You may test this easily.  Acquire a bowling ball, and a nerf fooball.  Hold them out at shoulder height and drop them.   The bowling ball lands first.  The only way this wouldn't happen is if you were in a vacuum.

Been at work all day, yet no response to my post here scepti?  You had over 12 hours to think of something.  Or are you just going to ignore it like you usually do?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 07:35:58 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2015, 07:25:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 07:23:09 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2015, 07:15:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 07:10:52 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2015, 06:47:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 06:28:38 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2015, 06:15:46 AM

Then why does everything fall back down?  Why not fly to the left, the right, or up?  Why down?

Any mass/density on the ground is under pressure. To raise that mass/density you need a force higher than the force keeping it on the ground. In this case it's your hand. That force is still encasing that ball's mass and is always pushing back against that ball's mass/density that's displaced that atmosphere.
You push the ball up and you compress the air above it. That air will force it back down to try and equalise because you created a lower pressure underneath the ball as you lift it up against the higher pressure you're compressing the air above with it.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2015, 06:15:46 AM

Why when a ball is thrown to the right and up, does it continue traveling right as denpressure pushes it back to the ground?  Why doesn't it get pushed back to the thrower's hand?

Because the atmosphere is stacked, so as you use energy to throw up and away from you, the ball compresses that atmosphere which pushes back. So you simply get an arc as it's being pushed back against for the duration of that peak energy.

But why doesn't the ball compress the air to the right of it and get pushed back?  Isn't your view of the earth inside a sealed ice dome?  Why just down?  What causes the air to be stacked if there isn't anything pushing down on the air?  How does it know down?

When I know you're serious about understanding it I might explain it to you. In the frame of mind you're in asking these questions, all it tells me is, you have took no notice whatsoever of what I told you before.
If you can't grasp what stacked means, how are you ever going to grasp the rest of it all.
This makes me think that you learn nothing and anything you appear to learn is simply what you cherry pick from google or some science book, then pass it off as if you know what you're talking about.
Prove to me you're not a dummy and I'll play along with you.

Don't come back to me unless you grasp what stacked means, inside a dome.

So in other words, you can't explain the simple action of throwing a ball with your denpressure.  Gotcha.
And I do know what stacked means.  What I want to know is why in the downward direction?

Asking me why in the downward direction then telling me you know what stacked means. Nahhhh. Come back when you actually understand it. I have no issue in explaining things to people with a brain. Get one and come back to me.

You do have an issue with explaining to people.  Because when asked a question a 5 year old would think of, you sidestep it.

So why the downward direction?  Why to to the left or to the right or up?  Why down?

Before I answer you I need to know if you are even dimply liy, never mind switched fully on.

Ok, I want you to tell me what stacked would mean under a dome.

Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?

Is this with or without gravity?
With gravity, more pressure from the top pushing down.
Without gravity, equal pressure from all sides.

Quote

Also, once you've done that. I want you to tell me what would be easier.  If you held an iron ball in your hand, (bearing in mind your body is strong enough under the rubber balls to go about your life) what would happen if you tried to throw that iron ball up against the mass of rubber balls against throwing that iron ball horizontally into the rubber balls. Which would be easier and what would happen to the iron ball in both cases.

It wouldn't matter which direction I throw it.  If there is no gravity, and only the resistance of the material I am in effects the ball, then I believe this would happen.
If there is resistance to the movement, and enough so that it would return the iron ball to my hand if I throw it up, then if I throw it to the right, it would return to my hand. Thrown to the left, it would return to my hand.  Thrown downward, it would return to my hand.

Quote

If you can't answer this, then I'll explain.
If I'm not giving you a depeiction of the atmosphere , then explain why not.

There's a few things to ponder over. If you come back to me with a load of tosh, consider this the last post to you. Fair enough?

What do you consider a load of tosh? Anything that goes against your views?  In that case, please explain why my above description is wrong.
Also, I have just decided that if denpressure works as you say, it actually supports a round earth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2015, 07:35:58 AM

Here's a scenario I'd like you to think of.
Imagine you are under a massive dome that is filling up from the ground with rubber balls (for instance).
Can you tell me where the most pressure would be and where the least pressure would be?

If there is no such thing as gravity, then why would the rubber balls prefer the ground over the wall of the dome as a place to start stacking onto?  Why don't the balls stack from the top of the dome downwards?  If there is no gravity, then why would the balls stack at all?

This very question should teach you something. Either read what's been wrote and absorb it or don't bother coming out with this stuff, because you are asking a question that has been fully explained before. You were in that topic so you should know the answer I gave.

Just to give you a helping hand.
All matter is pushed UP out of the ground by energy. That's what builds the dome when gases are seperated by pressure differences due to friction caused by the energy of the central Earth energy giver. What you see as a reflective sun.

I believe it was rottingroom who cornered specti to the point that he had to say that denpressure^TM is the force that causes itself. Even if scepti didn't say this explicitly, it was the usual scepti rhetoric in that he stated something along the lines of 'it's just the way it is, accept it'.

Utter brilliance from our resident genius. He accepts his own made-up drivel a priori and ignores the volumes of verifiable scientific tests that have been taking place long before he was even born.

Not only that, he also stated in the same thread that the equations used for Newtonian mechanics and gravity should be continued to be used because they work but are still based on lies. I found this hilarious because specti obviously didn't understand the implications of his general hand waving when he was being pushed about producing an equation for denpressure^TM.

So gravity works in the real world and can be tested and verified mathematically, but it's still false... for some reason.

And now, a Q for scepti: What is the difference between any of Newton's equations and, say, the equation for finding the volume of a sphere? Both work in the real world, after all.. so how come one is true and the others are false?

None of you can corner me. I'm right and you are wrong and so are the rest of your gravity theorists.
There are no Newton equations. The only equations are those made up by today's science world and attributed to people like Newton.

They simply make up crap about an apple falling on his head because it's good old historical reading that pushes the bullshit deep into ever willing gooey eyed learners.

Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?

Ok, hopefully you may get this.

Let's use a train as an example.
Inside that carriage at rest, you are equal in pressure to the outside. Fair enough?
Ok, once that carriage starts to move, you are now changing that pressure acting upon you. You are changing it into compressed air without freedom of escape, unlike the air outside that is compressing but can escape over the actual carriage itself.

Try and think hard on this because it's key to undertstanding.
You see, once you are in motion in that carriage, your body is under more pressure. It's minor but it's there. It becomes stronger depending on acceleration. As soon as the carriage becomes a constant speed, your body equalises insaide that carriage. You still don't notice any real pressure because of this equalisation.

Just for the sake of it, think of that carriage accelerating from that point, let's say you're doing 50 mph and in 5 seconds you have accelerated to 200 mph. You will feel this compression upon you because the air inssiode the carriage gets compressed to the back as the air outside seeps in to add to that pressure.
The result is, you get pushed back into your seat until that acceleration stops. Once that acceleration stops or becomes constant, you feel this as the compressed air what is being pushed to the back, evens up and equalises around you once again. You will feel this as a gentle push forward whilst equalisation takes place.

This train example is interesting too. I'm trying to grasp the key concept here. So when the carriage is at rest then denser air is at the bottom and less denser is on top. Objects will fall from up to bottom according to pressure layers. Atmosphere is working against objects. Fine. When carriage starts to accelerate then back wall will compress air and locomotive facing wall will decompress it causing horizontal layers of air forming so that I feel weight towards the seat I'am sitting because is more dense there. Good so far?

Lets say that the locomotive accelerates 9.8 m/s^2 for the sake of simplicity so we experience the same weight towards the seat than we do towards ground. If we look how pressure layers are stacked they appear to be in 45 degree angle so if something is dropped from the center of the carriage it will eventually drop to back lower corner if we assume carriage to be square shaped. Correct?

So we can say hypothetically that if we could locally engineer a closed body of air that has more dense air on top and less dense at the bottom then objects inside it would fall towards sealing? Hypothetically speaking of course. I'am sure that engineering such conditions is much hard as creating a vacuum where that same object would float relative to the walls.

But what can you say about the nature of this body of stacked air? What is the relation of acceleration to pressure or differences in pressure? In normal atmospheric conditions at sea level we observe lets' say one unit of pressure at sea level and gradual change to lets' say 0.5 units at some height. Now what determines the acceleration? Is it the 0.5 unit difference or absolute values of pressure or what?

Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?

Because the gases inside that balloon are more expanded, as in helium. The air pressure at sea level os compressed, meaning the molecules are very small and condensed. Anything more expanded will be PUSHED into the sky, which is why tehre is a dome.
I've told you time and time again that air pressure isn't pushing down. It's mass pushing into it that compresses it to resist that and push back.
Air is simply stacked all the way to the top by push on push which is why helium ends up near the top due to it being more expanded.

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 25, 2015, 12:10:41 AM

Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?

Because the gases inside that balloon are more expanded, as in helium. The air pressure at sea level os compressed, meaning the molecules are very small and condensed. Anything more expanded will be PUSHED into the sky, which is why tehre is a dome.
I've told you time and time again that air pressure isn't pushing down. It's mass pushing into it that compresses it to resist that and push back.
Air is simply stacked all the way to the top by push on push which is why helium ends up near the top due to it being more expanded.

I take it a hot air balloon work the same way, despite the fact it is filled with plain old air, from ground level, just heated slightly?

This train example is interesting too. I'm trying to grasp the key concept here. So when the carriage is at rest then denser air is at the bottom and less denser is on top.
 Objects will fall from up to bottom according to pressure layers. Atmosphere is working against objects. Fine. When carriage starts to accelerate then back wall will compress air and locomotive facing wall will decompress it causing horizontal layers of air forming so that I feel weight towards the seat I'am sitting because is more dense there. Good so far?

Basically, yes.

Lets say that the locomotive accelerates 9.8 m/s^2 for the sake of simplicity so we experience the same weight towards the seat than we do towards ground. If we look how pressure layers are stacked they appear to be in 45 degree angle so if something is dropped from the center of the carriage it will eventually drop to back lower corner if we assume carriage to be square shaped. Correct?

Only if the locomotive is accelerating. Not if it was at a constant speed.

So we can say hypothetically that if we could locally engineer a closed body of air that has more dense air on top and less dense at the bottom then objects inside it would fall towards sealing? Hypothetically speaking of course. I'am sure that engineering such conditions is much hard as creating a vacuum where that same object would float relative to the walls.

Ok, let's clarify so we don't get our wires crossed.
You're never going to get less dense at the bottom. Air pressure is dependent on stacking. It's like saying that we can turn a skyscraper upside down and balance it on its spire and all will be fine. It's not.

But what can you say about the nature of this body of stacked air? What is the relation of acceleration to pressure or differences in pressure? In normal atmospheric conditions at sea level we observe lets' say one unit of pressure at sea level and gradual change to lets' say 0.5 units at some height. Now what determines the acceleration? Is it the 0.5 unit difference or absolute values of pressure or what?

Let me make this easier for you. You seem to want to understand it.

Imagine you're in that train carriage with the full front cut off it so when it accelerates, all the air inrushes and fills that carriage. Naturally you feel your hair and face take that wind pressure, plus it pushes you into your seat.
As that carriage accelerates, the air pressure builds up and it can't simply flow because the back of the carriage is closed off.
Because of this, you would find that breathing is hard and also your face is getting air blasted.
That air wants to tear that carriage apart but the carriage is strong and resists it but the inrushing air has to go somewhere, which it does, eventually once it's built up a pressure equal to outside which can only happen once that carriage takes a constant speed.
You still feel the force on your body because of the wind hitting the back and rebounding around the carriage and squeezing back out once you are constant.

Now if you stick the front back onto that carriage and do the very same thing, you find that the air that hits the carriage front is now rebounded off it and around the outside of it....but it also seeps into the carriage yet you don't realise this because it's a pressure seep. It's a pressure build up as the carriage smashes into the air from the back as the air in front pressures the front and starts to compress all that is in the carriage on acceleration. You feel it by being pushed into your seat. You can see it by watching your drink slide towards you.
Your body is a lot more mass so it takes more of the pressure and pushes you back into your seat.

Once that carriage goes a constant speed, everything inside of that carriage equalises and you feel that by being slowly balanced again, yet you are still under a bit more pressure due to the speed.
The thing is, at those speeds it's barely noticeable.

Now imagine the carriage brakes are pulled. Once this happens you feel yourself being pushed forward violently. This is because the air pressure has been unbalanced inside and the air at the front is compressed into the back and rebounded right onto your back which pushes you forward. Once that carriage stops, you get shoved back into your seat again because now the pressure has to even up, meaning it now pushes back against you as it heads to the back to even up.

See what I'm saying?

There's no inertia and no gravity. It's simply atmospheric pressure that is responsible for everything.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There has to be an action first. An energy before a reaction, always.

If you borrow 10 you pay it back, always.

And if no air seeps into the carridge the same effect is felt.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 12:19:53 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 25, 2015, 12:10:41 AM

Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?

Because the gases inside that balloon are more expanded, as in helium. The air pressure at sea level os compressed, meaning the molecules are very small and condensed. Anything more expanded will be PUSHED into the sky, which is why tehre is a dome.
I've told you time and time again that air pressure isn't pushing down. It's mass pushing into it that compresses it to resist that and push back.
Air is simply stacked all the way to the top by push on push which is why helium ends up near the top due to it being more expanded.

I take it a hot air balloon work the same way, despite the fact it is filled with plain old air, from ground level, just heated slightly?

You're using energy to expand the molecules. You're making those molecules bigger against the more denser and more compressed atmosphere. Because those molecules are expanding, they agitate as they do and as they do this, the denser molecules are squeezing around them, forcing them up.

The easiest way to see this is to put some ping pong balls into a tub and fill with sand. Now get a vibrating sander or something or a massager and vibrate the tub and watch the ping pong balls be squeezed to the top of the sand. Same principle, only we are dealing with gases.
It's the same with all matter and density.

And if no air seeps into the carridge the same effect is felt.

If the carriage was sealed you still have the pressure inside the carriage.

So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

You're barking up the wrong tree. The Earth is a sealed unit. It's stationary.
It's a self preservation cell. It mixes it's own potions of life.

Quote from: BiJane on February 25, 2015, 01:07:32 AM

So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

You're barking up the wrong tree. The Earth is a sealed unit. It's stationary.
It's a self preservation cell. It mixes it's own potions of life.

Then why illustrate the principle by relying on vessels in which external motion takes place? The only explanation I can see for your air pressure is the movement at a constant speed (which is, after all, allowed by Newton if there are no resistant forces). If the Earth hangs stationary, there's no external vibrations, no movement. Without any movement or force, air hangs stationary. It won't so much as touch the sides of the world.
If it's purely down to compression (which I doubt it could be as we're dealing with a gas) why can we walk horizontally, and not keep going upwards?

Quote from: BiJane on February 25, 2015, 01:07:32 AM

So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

You're barking up the wrong tree. The Earth is a sealed unit. It's stationary.
It's a self preservation cell. It mixes it's own potions of life.

One thing about your theory that keeps coming back to me. You say we all live under a dome. In that dome, air is stacked (I assume in columns, although why columns I don't know since pressure acts equally in all directions) from the ground to the dome and thus the "weight" of this air pushes down on us and thus we experience what we call gravity. Is this a good summary?

The thing that keeps coming into my mind is that under a dome, the "stacks" would gradually become less "stacked" the closer to the rim you got therefore, pressure will drop towards the rim. I would weight less in say Australia than I do in say Scotland. This should be measurable.

Also, if pressure is what gives a mass its weight then why would a solid steel ball measuring 1 meter in diameter weigh more that a solid plastic ball measuring 1 meter in diameter?

A confused, but entertained, ReT'er

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

This train example is interesting too. I'm trying to grasp the key concept here. So when the carriage is at rest then denser air is at the bottom and less denser is on top.
 Objects will fall from up to bottom according to pressure layers. Atmosphere is working against objects. Fine. When carriage starts to accelerate then back wall will compress air and locomotive facing wall will decompress it causing horizontal layers of air forming so that I feel weight towards the seat I'am sitting because is more dense there. Good so far?

Basically, yes.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

Lets say that the locomotive accelerates 9.8 m/s^2 for the sake of simplicity so we experience the same weight towards the seat than we do towards ground. If we look how pressure layers are stacked they appear to be in 45 degree angle so if something is dropped from the center of the carriage it will eventually drop to back lower corner if we assume carriage to be square shaped. Correct?

Only if the locomotive is accelerating. Not if it was at a constant speed.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

So we can say hypothetically that if we could locally engineer a closed body of air that has more dense air on top and less dense at the bottom then objects inside it would fall towards sealing? Hypothetically speaking of course. I'am sure that engineering such conditions is much hard as creating a vacuum where that same object would float relative to the walls.

Ok, let's clarify so we don't get our wires crossed.
You're never going to get less dense at the bottom. Air pressure is dependent on stacking. It's like saying that we can turn a skyscraper upside down and balance it on its spire and all will be fine. It's not.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

But what can you say about the nature of this body of stacked air? What is the relation of acceleration to pressure or differences in pressure? In normal atmospheric conditions at sea level we observe lets' say one unit of pressure at sea level and gradual change to lets' say 0.5 units at some height. Now what determines the acceleration? Is it the 0.5 unit difference or absolute values of pressure or what?

Let me make this easier for you. You seem to want to understand it.

OK so air pressure is consequence of stacking then? Then what is the nature of this stacking? We are able to manipulate the vector of this stacking relatively and for short time don't we? Steer jet directly towards ground with afterburners on you will have for a moment feeling that you are being pressed your seat so stacks must be upside down in your cockpit for those seconds before crashing.

What I want and need is to have equation between air pressure stacking and acceleration. This is what i'am asking. I want to calculate from observed air pressure stacking what the acceleration at free fall would be. Is this not possible in depressure? So if I experience acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 then what can be said about the pressure stacks? And if no unit of measurement is suitable for this calculation then use relative numbers. Double the acceleration to 19.6 m/s^2. Is the measured pressure difference per height unit now double?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 01:09:23 AM

Quote from: BiJane on February 25, 2015, 01:07:32 AM

So, from what I can gather, are you saying the Earth as a whole is moving at a constant speed, and air pressure results from the push of the Earth pushing toward the air, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

You're barking up the wrong tree. The Earth is a sealed unit. It's stationary.
It's a self preservation cell. It mixes it's own potions of life.

Then why illustrate the principle by relying on vessels in which external motion takes place? The only explanation I can see for your air pressure is the movement at a constant speed (which is, after all, allowed by Newton if there are no resistant forces). If the Earth hangs stationary, there's no external vibrations, no movement. Without any movement or force, air hangs stationary. It won't so much as touch the sides of the world.
If it's purely down to compression (which I doubt it could be as we're dealing with a gas) why can we walk horizontally, and not keep going upwards?

Air does have motion. It's called expansion and compression due to energy.

Let's try and go real basic here. Let's imagine the earth is a kettle and the element of that kettle is the energy.
That energy agitates the water and the water boils. That boiling water if you look, has many bubbles in all states of expansion from the tiny ones at the bottom to the more explanded at the top. Those that you see pop and turn into gas that rises.

This is what we observe but it's how it works that is the key. It's all vibration/friction that releases the elements.

Those elements rise and hit the lid of the kettle. Now because it's a kettle working under atmospheric sea level pressure, it doesn't show a real example of what's happening inside this sealed dome Earth but the principle is there.

The only difference is, in the domed Earth, the gases rise by being decompressed by energy, causing the vibration/friction which expands the denser matter which is squeezed up and up and up. You see it as humid or clouds or higher up where it becomes a fluid helium or hydrogen, then it freezes at the very top due to no compression on it at all.

Just try and get your head around it and don't fight it. This way you'll get an understanding if you chip away instead of trying to immdiately go into gravity mode and your indoctrinated mode.

One thing about your theory that keeps coming back to me. You say we all live under a dome. In that dome, air is stacked (I assume in columns, although why columns I don't know since pressure acts equally in all directions) from the ground to the dome and thus the "weight" of this air pushes down on us and thus we experience what we call gravity. Is this a good summary?

Pressure doesn't act equally. It dimishes higher up and further out. The biggest pressure is in the centre. Just like a cake in the oven would sink or a plug in the sink taking the most pressure.

The thing that keeps coming into my mind is that under a dome, the "stacks" would gradually become less "stacked" the closer to the rim you got therefore, pressure will drop towards the rim. I would weight less in say Australia than I do in say Scotland. This should be measurable.

Yes the pressure drops towards the outer rim. the further out you go the less pressure there is and the colder is becomes because of this.
This is why man would only get so far towards the rim before dying or machinery simply seizing up.

Also, if pressure is what gives a mass its weight then why would a solid steel ball measuring 1 meter in diameter weigh more that a solid plastic ball measuring 1 meter in diameter?

A confused, but entertained, ReT'er

Because a solid iron ball has less trapped atmosphere inside of it. A plastic ball has a lot more of that atmosphere, so in essence the plastic ball is already equalised with much of its mass and so the rest of it's dense mass would be what's pushing against the atmosphere to compress it which compresses back. the iron ball is more compact and hold much less atmosphere so the ball itself doesn't absorb much, meaning the density of that ball throws a lot more of that against the atmosphere which pushes back against that balls push against it, creating a measurable difference in weight on a scale.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 12:53:19 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

This train example is interesting too. I'm trying to grasp the key concept here. So when the carriage is at rest then denser air is at the bottom and less denser is on top.
 Objects will fall from up to bottom according to pressure layers. Atmosphere is working against objects. Fine. When carriage starts to accelerate then back wall will compress air and locomotive facing wall will decompress it causing horizontal layers of air forming so that I feel weight towards the seat I'am sitting because is more dense there. Good so far?

Basically, yes.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

Lets say that the locomotive accelerates 9.8 m/s^2 for the sake of simplicity so we experience the same weight towards the seat than we do towards ground. If we look how pressure layers are stacked they appear to be in 45 degree angle so if something is dropped from the center of the carriage it will eventually drop to back lower corner if we assume carriage to be square shaped. Correct?

Only if the locomotive is accelerating. Not if it was at a constant speed.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

So we can say hypothetically that if we could locally engineer a closed body of air that has more dense air on top and less dense at the bottom then objects inside it would fall towards sealing? Hypothetically speaking of course. I'am sure that engineering such conditions is much hard as creating a vacuum where that same object would float relative to the walls.

Ok, let's clarify so we don't get our wires crossed.
You're never going to get less dense at the bottom. Air pressure is dependent on stacking. It's like saying that we can turn a skyscraper upside down and balance it on its spire and all will be fine. It's not.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

But what can you say about the nature of this body of stacked air? What is the relation of acceleration to pressure or differences in pressure? In normal atmospheric conditions at sea level we observe lets' say one unit of pressure at sea level and gradual change to lets' say 0.5 units at some height. Now what determines the acceleration? Is it the 0.5 unit difference or absolute values of pressure or what?

Let me make this easier for you. You seem to want to understand it.

OK so air pressure is consequence of stacking then? Then what is the nature of this stacking? We are able to manipulate the vector of this stacking relatively and for short time don't we? Steer jet directly towards ground with afterburners on you will have for a moment feeling that you are being pressed your seat so stacks must be upside down in your cockpit for those seconds before crashing.

What I want and need is to have equation between air pressure stacking and acceleration. This is what i'am asking. I want to calculate from observed air pressure stacking what the acceleration at free fall would be. Is this not possible in depressure? So if I experience acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 then what can be said about the pressure stacks? And if no unit of measurement is suitable for this calculation then use relative numbers. Double the acceleration to 19.6 m/s^2. Is the measured pressure difference per height unit now double?

I'll get back to you on this as I have to go for now. All I will say is, I have no means to measure this stuff because I don't have a jet or anything that can measure anything what you are asking.