Gravity = Air Pressure

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 01:32:24 AM

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.

I will get you a head start here. This is what we know or can measure ourselves easily.

At sea level or your everyday life.
acceleration towards ground = 9.8 m/s^2
measured value of pressure = 101325 Pa
pressure drops at rate when going upwards = 12 Pa/m

Then denpressure predicts that in theoretical vacuum or uniform body of pressure.
acceleration = 0
measured value of pressure = 0 or anything in case of uniform body of pressure
pressure drop at any given direction = 0

So what we can say is that that 12 Pa/m is a measurement of these stacks at sea level. So I'll deduct that 12 Pa/m is the condition where 1 g acceleration occurs and less than 1 g acceleration would be caused stacks that can be measured less than 12 Pa/m.

Function for denpressure in general gives then results:
9.8 = denpressure(12)
0 = denpressure(0)

and keep mind that vacuum chambers can reach pressures like 1 x 10^−7 Pa and no significant observation on varying acceleration has been made. Bear also in mind that when measured pressure is something like 0.0000001 Pa then having stacks where you can measure difference of 12 Pa/m would cause negative pressure which is impossible. So therefore the pressure difference in vacuum chamber top and bottom must be less than 0.0000001 Pa.

9.8 = denpressure(max(0.0000001))

Since you are the founding father of this idea please define the denpressure function where those values will fit approximately.

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

This explains some motion: I wasn't certain how exactly you were getting some in, so thank you. Compression was my best guess: but the problem is, as you've said, there can't be a net downwards force. The vibration, friction, any of that should be just as relevant in a horizontal direction, rather than a vertical. Maybe the presence of the Earth allows collision/stacking, but then we should be able to climb up walls as air would stack there too.
I'm not assuming gravity, I'm working strictly in terms of what you're saying, and it doesn't seem to match what we observe.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 01:46:57 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 01:32:24 AM

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.

I will get you a head start here. This is what we know or can measure ourselves easily.

At sea level or your everyday life.
acceleration towards ground = 9.8 m/s^2
measured value of pressure = 101325 Pa
pressure drops at rate when going upwards = 12 Pa/m

Then denpressure predicts that in theoretical vacuum or uniform body of pressure.
acceleration = 0
measured value of pressure = 0 or anything in case of uniform body of pressure
pressure drop at any given direction = 0

So what we can say is that that 12 Pa/m is a measurement of these stacks at sea level. So I'll deduct that 12 Pa/m is the condition where 1 g acceleration occurs and less than 1 g acceleration would be caused stacks that can be measured less than 12 Pa/m.

Function for denpressure in general gives then results:
9.8 = denpressure(12)
0 = denpressure(0)

and keep mind that vacuum chambers can reach pressures like 1 x 10^−7 Pa and no significant observation on varying acceleration has been made. Bear also in mind that when measured pressure is something like 0.0000001 Pa then having stacks where you can measure difference of 12 Pa/m would cause negative pressure which is impossible. So therefore the pressure difference in vacuum chamber top and bottom must be less than 0.0000001 Pa.

9.8 = denpressure(max(0.0000001))

Since you are the founding father of this idea please define the denpressure function where those values will fit approximately.

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 01:34:43 AM

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

This explains some motion: I wasn't certain how exactly you were getting some in, so thank you. Compression was my best guess: but the problem is, as you've said, there can't be a net downwards force. The vibration, friction, any of that should be just as relevant in a horizontal direction, rather than a vertical. Maybe the presence of the Earth allows collision/stacking, but then we should be able to climb up walls as air would stack there too.
I'm not assuming gravity, I'm working strictly in terms of what you're saying, and it doesn't seem to match what we observe.

There is only a downwards force when matter is pushed into it by energy. It's a reactionary force to our action or the action of something pushing into it.
You never feel wind from above, right?
You never feel wind from below.
Wind originates from the horizontal. This is due to pressure differences due to temperature changes which creates a drop in pressure over land or sea areas that creates variances.

If you go back to the train carriage scenario of it being open. You can look at it as air rushing in which would be like the horizontal pressure we feel, as in wind.
Close the carriage and we feel that pressure as from above. Basically hardly noticeable because our bodies are generally equalised to it.

To try and make the pressure easier for you to understand, just think of someone stacking bricks all around and above you.
You are stood up in the middle. The bricks above your head are crushing your head into your neck and also crushing your shoulders.
The rest are pushing you from the horizontal. It's more of a friction push or grip by this method down your body length.
You have unbalanced the force by pushing into it.

So basically think of the same stack of bricks. You are under the ground and you force yourself up against the bricks...what happens?
You push the bricks up and around you as you rise up. Your body is in the place where bricks used to be but you've displaced them and those brocks you displaced are now adding pressure back onto you.

It's like a ship on the ocean. It displaces exactly its own mass, density of water and that water immediately gets pushed away but crushes back against the ship.

To try and make the pressure easier for you to understand, just think of someone stacking bricks all around and above you.
You are stood up in the middle. The bricks above your head are crushing your head into your neck and also crushing your shoulders.
The rest are pushing you from the horizontal. It's more of a friction push or grip by this method down your body length.
You have unbalanced the force by pushing into it.

If I tried to move horizontally, I'd run into the same resistance as if I moved upwards. Think of it mechanically: mathematically. As whether or not this pressure is present in the real world is the question, it seems hasty to use a real-world example as an illustration. Obviously I think gravity is the case, many FEers think UA is the case, so there is a downwards force by this reckoning. It seems more reasonable to work in theory.
If we work without any of that though, there is no down, and there is no up, or left, or right, or forwards, or anything. If someone stacks bricks around me, the only result is friction, which is the same at every angle. Moving 'up' would be exactly as hard as moving 'left', because there should be no difference between the two.

A reactionary force should not be unique to the Earth's surface. Why is there no such pressure against walls? There should be no concept of down, it should happen similarly on every surface, no matter the orientation.

If I tried to move horizontally, I'd run into the same resistance as if I moved upwards. Think of it mechanically: mathematically. As whether or not this pressure is present in the real world is the question, it seems hasty to use a real-world example as an illustration. Obviously I think gravity is the case, many FEers think UA is the case, so there is a downwards force by this reckoning. It seems more reasonable to work in theory.
 If we work without any of that though, there is no down, and there is no up, or left, or right, or forwards, or anything. If someone stacks bricks around me, the only result is friction, which is the same at every angle. Moving 'up' would be exactly as hard as moving 'left', because there should be no difference between the two.

I well understand that gravity and UA can be used. Let's face it, the forces are  invisible to us if you look at it from that point on. What is known to us is wind. We know there is wind. We know there is a force.
This cannot be said of gravity, except to hypothesise it to be responsible as a force and that's that by using mass on mass as some rule of thumb.

Gravity is certainly not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination, except when vacuums and space are used as the ruse. It requires logical thought to accept that a vacuum - a true vacuum - cannot be created on Earth. It has to be understood that a true vacuum is the absence of all matter. The absence of all matter means the absence of gravity even as a fictional force. A force has to have a reason. Gravity is a name given for a fantasy working in conjunction with atmospheric pressure, when the reality is, atmospheric pressure needs no ally for life.
I used the bricks analogy because I was appealing to your common sense and logic to see it as an analogy, nothing else.
I'll make it simpler.
A water fall cascading down and you are directly beneath it. You feel that pressure pushing you down. Try to jump up against it and you find it hard. Walk along it horizontally and you find it easier, why?

Because the water fall aids your movement horizontally as you move. It transfers it's pressure from your head to your back and pushes you...but it pushes you into the next line of water. It equalises as you move, meaning your body can use its energy to plough through it with a lot more ease than trying to jump up against it which only aids in you pushing that water back up for it to cascade down your body and gripping you or squeezing you back down.

Why do you think you get tired walking up a hill?...you have to understand your body's movements against atmospheric pressure to understand why climbing is more strenuous than walking a flat plain.
No gravity needed.

A reactionary force should not be unique to the Earth's surface. Why is there no such pressure against walls? There should be no concept of down, it should happen similarly on every surface, no matter the orientation.

There is pressure against walls. Why do you think they stand up? It's a balancing act of atmospheric pressure acting on the top and gripping the sides, just like us.
Make the force unequal and the wall can fall over or crumble over time due to it pushing into the atmosphere for however long.

A water fall cascading down and you are directly beneath it. You feel that pressure pushing you down. Try to jump up against it and you find it hard. Walk along it horizontally and you find it easier, why?

Because the force of the waterfall is downwards. if someone points a firehose at you, you'll struggle to walk against its flow when the force is horizontal: yet it's still easier to duck.

Why do you think you get tired walking up a hill?...you have to understand your body's movements against atmospheric pressure to understand why climbing is more strenuous than walking a flat plain.

Because I am resisting an upwards force. That's the obvious conclusion: your model does not account for this. Repeated analogies based on a world with a downwards force are not going to change that.
And at this point, I'm happy to say that there must be a downwards force, because without it your model simply does not work. There is no way to tell up from left from down, which clearly doesn't match the observations we can make of the world. You're appealing to some way that this pressure can tell the difference between the horizontal and the vertical, but you're not explaining it: you're just saying it's there. In which case, cut out the middle man. Talk about what that is, talk about what it is that lets your pressure model tell the difference between the directions.

There is pressure against walls. Why do you think they stand up? It's a balancing act of atmospheric pressure acting on the top and gripping the sides, just like us.

And yet we can't walk up walls, even though there should be no difference, according to your model, between them and the earth. They're just surfaces for air to stack against. The only thing that could set them apart is some notion of direction or orientation, which you need to define.

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 03:41:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 01:46:57 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 01:32:24 AM

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.

I will get you a head start here. This is what we know or can measure ourselves easily.

At sea level or your everyday life.
acceleration towards ground = 9.8 m/s^2
measured value of pressure = 101325 Pa
pressure drops at rate when going upwards = 12 Pa/m

Then denpressure predicts that in theoretical vacuum or uniform body of pressure.
acceleration = 0
measured value of pressure = 0 or anything in case of uniform body of pressure
pressure drop at any given direction = 0

So what we can say is that that 12 Pa/m is a measurement of these stacks at sea level. So I'll deduct that 12 Pa/m is the condition where 1 g acceleration occurs and less than 1 g acceleration would be caused stacks that can be measured less than 12 Pa/m.

Function for denpressure in general gives then results:
9.8 = denpressure(12)
0 = denpressure(0)

and keep mind that vacuum chambers can reach pressures like 1 x 10^−7 Pa and no significant observation on varying acceleration has been made. Bear also in mind that when measured pressure is something like 0.0000001 Pa then having stacks where you can measure difference of 12 Pa/m would cause negative pressure which is impossible. So therefore the pressure difference in vacuum chamber top and bottom must be less than 0.0000001 Pa.

9.8 = denpressure(max(0.0000001))

Since you are the founding father of this idea please define the denpressure function where those values will fit approximately.

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Running this through my Sceptimatic translator, I get this: You've just destroyed my argument with measurable real world numbers concerning atmospheric pressure. Since none of the nonsense I post can be reconciled with real-world observation or quantitatively defined, I'm going to retreat from debating with you and pretend you don't exist. Can't we just stick with my non-analogous analogies and forget about the real world for crying out loud?

Because the force of the waterfall is downwards. if someone points a firehose at you, you'll struggle to walk against its flow when the force is horizontal: yet it's still easier to duck.

Yes the force of the waterfall is downwards. I was again appealing to your logical common sense as an analogy, so I'll change it a little.
Let's freeze that waterfall. From that frozen water fall, which part of it if you were to cut it into strips horizontally and say a foot vertically all the way to the start of that descent of the fall. Which part of it would put most pressure on your head?
I'll let you answer this and why before I let you know.

Because I am resisting an upwards force. That's the obvious conclusion: your model does not account for this. Repeated analogies based on a world with a downwards force are not going to change that.

A downwards force is only relevant to any object pushing in an upwards direction. It has to displace the atmosphere.
The only thing feeling the force of it , assuming the land was completely flat would be the land itself or the ocean.
As for us. Imagine we simply grew out of the ground. We push up against that pressure and compress it by our own dense mass. We now occupy our own dense mass of that atmosphere. We bullied it out of the way but it bullies us right back by enveloping us and holding us in a grip. The only way to change that is to jump up against it or run horizontally through it, so we get the first bullying push in at all times but the atmosphere immediately reacts to us doing that by flling the place we were with atrmosphere again, as we rob the next body full and so on.

And at this point, I'm happy to say that there must be a downwards force, because without it your model simply does not work. There is no way to tell up from left from down, which clearly doesn't match the observations we can make of the world. You're appealing to some way that this pressure can tell the difference between the horizontal and the vertical, but you're not explaining it: you're just saying it's there.

It's nothing to do with pressure telling the difference. It's about your own mass or the mass of anything that pushes into it. The amount of displacement is down to the density of the object placed up against it.

In which case, cut out the middle man. Talk about what that is, talk about what it is that lets your pressure model tell the difference between the directions.

Directions of pressure are dependent on energy, either naturally or by ourselves by our own energy of machine or whatever.
Turn on a fan and you change the pattern. Drive into it and you change the pattern.
Set fire to a forest and you create a pattern of wind that rushes in to fill the low pressure created by that fire.

Look at a fountain. Push the water vertically and it hits a barrier due to compression of air above and now that air is pushed around it which you see as a fanning out fountain.

And yet we can't walk up walls, even though there should be no difference, according to your model, between them and the earth. They're just surfaces for air to stack against. The only thing that could set them apart is some notion of direction or orientation, which you need to define.

Walking up a wall requires energy and grip. Your body is already acted upon by the atmosphere which is clamping you down as you push up, so no walking up walls unless you use clamps or a rope.

Walking up a wall requires energy and grip. Your body is already acted upon by the atmosphere which is clamping you down as you push up, so no walking up walls unless you use clamps or a rope.

I'm strangely turned on right now, and I'm ok with that; and I'm not ok with that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.

Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate  towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.

Maths isn't needed to prove what I'm saying.

Quote from: Göebbels on February 25, 2015, 07:18:58 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.

Maths isn't needed to prove what I'm saying.

No scepti, something like this absolutely needs to be proven using math, like every aspect of REF has been but zero aspects of FET.

Scepti, why do you keep ignoring the points that I made? 

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.

Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate  towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.

Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 07:36:02 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on February 25, 2015, 07:18:58 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.

Maths isn't needed to prove what I'm saying.

No scepti, something like this absolutely needs to be proven using math, like every aspect of REF has been but zero aspects of FET.

No it doesn't. Observations and common sense are all that's required. I don;t need maths to explain a concept. I only need maths if I want to apply a concept ot a specific project.
The reason why most people abandon logic is because they get bamboozled by the maths of something.

Now If I wanted to find out how I can jump out of a plane and land safely, I need to calculate the size of canopy I need against my mass. I accept the likes of this.

To understand what I'm trying to convey should take anyone with basic knowledge and common sense, not too long to start to grasp a little of it as it's explained. The minute people come in to scupper it by using maths is when the confusion starts because too many people are in awe of maths and decide to trust the numbers without actually bothering to look into how and why those numbers came about.

Now I'm going to give you a simple reason why maths does not explain anything like this.

The global Earth sun is 93 million miles away by calculation we are told.
The flat Earth sun from this site is judged to be 3000 miles away.
Both appear to be right. The problem is, both cannot be correct. It's very easy for you to appeal to authority to say your 93 million miles are correct but the calculations from the flat Earth side show 3000 miles to be correct. They can't appeal to authority but can show the maths.

Now the issue is is simple. One has to be wrong - but none has to be right, so where has maths got us?

Now let's look at gravity. 9.8m/s/s...how? Because it's been shown from a shallow height to be true on certain objects. Ok, so does this prove gravity?
Of course not. So what does?...mass attracting mass?...how?....the Cavendish experiment somehow does, except on a horizontal mass meets mass and somehow this is gravity at work....NO.

Calculations of Earth mass pulling other mass towards it? How?...easy. Earth weights blah blah blah and the moon weighs blah blah blah. Maths you see.
It's as pointless as saying that every time a cow farts, 62 blades of grass grow 1 mm in that field near the cows fart.

You see, the maths that are made up for this type of stuff are at best made up as a best guess and at worst are simply based on assumptions of sizes of things that cannot be measured in reality. Like Earth or the moon or the sun or the stars or whatever the hell scientist want to come out with.
Most of it is just pointless mumbo jumbo.

Yeah, so we measure using gravimeters and such like. What are we measuring? Gravity or atmospheric pressure?
You could argue for either. You could argue fro UA.

Now let's look at what can be observed against what can't. It's all about using your own mind and logic in its basic form to understand the simpler form of this Earth and how it works. Once you realise how simple it is, everything starts to click into place as to why it is something like what I've been saying all along.

It may not be exact but it's on the right lines, I believe.
People just fold arms and refuse or are too scared to dare to look into it in a basic way because they fear someone will jump in and ridicule them by using silly maths to account for it.

Maths is a good thing if used correctly. It's pointless if it isn't. It's abused to hell where space is concerned and also fictional gravity, etc.

Yes the force of the waterfall is downwards. I was again appealing to your logical common sense as an analogy, so I'll change it a little.

It's not a very good analogy if you assume the existence of the very thing under question.

Let's freeze that waterfall. From that frozen water fall, which part of it if you were to cut it into strips horizontally and say a foot vertically all the way to the start of that descent of the fall. Which part of it would put most pressure on your head?
I'll let you answer this and why before I let you know.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If we're assuming behavior we see on Earth, likely the top: either because it has more time to accelerate, or because the stream's thicker there, rather than a loose spray, though the latter case is down more to the analogy.

As for us. Imagine we simply grew out of the ground. We push up against that pressure and compress it by our own dense mass. We now occupy our own dense mass of that atmosphere. We bullied it out of the way but it bullies us right back by enveloping us and holding us in a grip. The only way to change that is to jump up against it or run horizontally through it, so we get the first bullying push in at all times but the atmosphere immediately reacts to us doing that by flling the place we were with atrmosphere again, as we rob the next body full and so on.

But again, why does running horizontally through it work? Why doesn't the same behavior hold? We run horizontally, the air ahead of us compresses, pushes back. We jump, air fills in where we jumped from.

Quote from: BiJane on February 25, 2015, 06:46:24 AM

In which case, cut out the middle man. Talk about what that is, talk about what it is that lets your pressure model tell the difference between the directions.

Directions of pressure are dependent on energy, either naturally or by ourselves by our own energy of machine or whatever.
Turn on a fan and you change the pattern. Drive into it and you change the pattern.
Set fire to a forest and you create a pattern of wind that rushes in to fill the low pressure created by that fire.

Look at a fountain. Push the water vertically and it hits a barrier due to compression of air above and now that air is pushed around it which you see as a fanning out fountain.

Directions of pressure are dependent on energy, fine: but why is energy in the vertical different to energy in the horizontal? You're not explaining that.

Walking up a wall requires energy and grip. Your body is already acted upon by the atmosphere which is clamping you down as you push up, so no walking up walls unless you use clamps or a rope.

You're doing the same thing again: insisting something's the case when your model doesn't explain it. I'll accept your model would, conceivably, allow for our bodies to be clamped down to a surface, but as soon as we go near a wall, why aren't we clamped to that? Why doesn't the stack take effect then?
You're giving special treatment to the vertical because of what we observe, but nothing in your model explains it.

Take an arbitrary hollow cube. If there is air inside it, how does the pressure work? Would you be pinned to any surface within that cube? If so, by walking up to the side of the cube, would you end up pinned to that other face, or would you remain on the face on which you stand? And either way, why? And, alternatively, if you'd only be pinned to one face (to cover all bases), why and how? What sets it apart?

Scepti, why do you keep ignoring the points that I made?

Because you act like a little prick. Once you stop acting like a little prick, I'll deal with you. Don't think you can converse with me one second then act the big man the next, because I'll just laugh at you and leave you like this.
Either take part properly, or don't. I'm easy either way. The minute you place me in a tit for tat kiddified game, I will overlook that post and not respond. I'm just making it clear.

If I call gravity, bollocks, take it as that. Don't take it as a personal dig. Learn this and you won't go far wrong.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 25, 2015, 07:38:41 AM

Scepti, why do you keep ignoring the points that I made?

Because you act like a little prick. Once you stop acting like a little prick, I'll deal with you. Don't think you can converse with me one second then act the big man the next, because I'll just laugh at you and leave you like this.
Either take part properly, or don't. I'm easy either way. The minute you place me in a tit for tat kiddified game, I will overlook that post and not respond. I'm just making it clear.

If I call gravity, bollocks, take it as that. Don't take it as a personal dig. Learn this and you won't go far wrong.

Under that logic we are all justified to ignore you.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 25, 2015, 07:37:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 07:36:02 AM

Quote from: Göebbels on February 25, 2015, 07:18:58 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

I could be wrong but Scepti won't get into math because he has no way to use them to prove his theory. OR, he doesn't know how to apply them.

Maths isn't needed to prove what I'm saying.

No scepti, something like this absolutely needs to be proven using math, like every aspect of REF has been but zero aspects of FET.

No it doesn't. Observations and common sense are all that's required. I don;t need maths to explain a concept. I only need maths if I want to apply a concept ot a specific project.
The reason why most people abandon logic is because they get bamboozled by the maths of something.

Now If I wanted to find out how I can jump out of a plane and land safely, I need to calculate the size of canopy I need against my mass. I accept the likes of this.

To understand what I'm trying to convey should take anyone with basic knowledge and common sense, not too long to start to grasp a little of it as it's explained. The minute people come in to scupper it by using maths is when the confusion starts because too many people are in awe of maths and decide to trust the numbers without actually bothering to look into how and why those numbers came about.

Now I'm going to give you a simple reason why maths does not explain anything like this.

The global Earth sun is 93 million miles away by calculation we are told.
The flat Earth sun from this site is judged to be 3000 miles away.
Both appear to be right. The problem is, both cannot be correct. It's very easy for you to appeal to authority to say your 93 million miles are correct but the calculations from the flat Earth side show 3000 miles to be correct. They can't appeal to authority but can show the maths.

Now the issue is is simple. One has to be wrong - but none has to be right, so where has maths got us?

Now let's look at gravity. 9.8m/s/s...how? Because it's been shown from a shallow height to be true on certain objects. Ok, so does this prove gravity?
Of course not. So what does?...mass attracting mass?...how?....the Cavendish experiment somehow does, except on a horizontal mass meets mass and somehow this is gravity at work....NO.

Calculations of Earth mass pulling other mass towards it? How?...easy. Earth weights blah blah blah and the moon weighs blah blah blah. Maths you see.
It's as pointless as saying that every time a cow farts, 62 blades of grass grow 1 mm in that field near the cows fart.

You see, the maths that are made up for this type of stuff are at best made up as a best guess and at worst are simply based on assumptions of sizes of things that cannot be measured in reality. Like Earth or the moon or the sun or the stars or whatever the hell scientist want to come out with.
Most of it is just pointless mumbo jumbo.

Yeah, so we measure using gravimeters and such like. What are we measuring? Gravity or atmospheric pressure?
You could argue for either. You could argue fro UA.

Now let's look at what can be observed against what can't. It's all about using your own mind and logic in its basic form to understand the simpler form of this Earth and how it works. Once you realise how simple it is, everything starts to click into place as to why it is something like what I've been saying all along.

It may not be exact but it's on the right lines, I believe.
People just fold arms and refuse or are too scared to dare to look into it in a basic way because they fear someone will jump in and ridicule them by using silly maths to account for it.

Maths is a good thing if used correctly. It's pointless if it isn't. It's abused to hell where space is concerned and also fictional gravity, etc.

You seem to be under the assumption that math was shoe horned into describing and predicting the real world. That is incorrect. It was designed to describe and predict the real world. It is maths only function.

If I see the moon orbiting the Earth, and can then make a formula that predicts the movement I see 100% of the time, then I described what I see. When that formula then can describe ALL observed attraction between objects, well then you have a fundamental law of physics.

You see that 100% of the time thing? That is what REF provides us, 100% repeatable verifiable and predictable results when we apply our "maths or something".

Where is anything about your theory that can use math to predict its out come 100% of the time?

You tell me to use my brain, but you are the one that is looking at a nail (round earth), looking at the hammer humans designed to take care of the nail (math) and saying, fuck it and bashing your head against the nail to hammer it in (denpressure).

Math is a tool, use it.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 25, 2015, 07:38:41 AM

Scepti, why do you keep ignoring the points that I made?

Because you act like a little prick. Once you stop acting like a little prick, I'll deal with you. Don't think you can converse with me one second then act the big man the next, because I'll just laugh at you and leave you like this.
Either take part properly, or don't. I'm easy either way. The minute you place me in a tit for tat kiddified game, I will overlook that post and not respond. I'm just making it clear.

If I call gravity, bollocks, take it as that. Don't take it as a personal dig. Learn this and you won't go far wrong.

So making logical rebuttals to your "theory" is acting like a little prick?  You asked me what I thought would happen in a certain situation.  I told you.  Instead of saying why I was wrong, you ignored it, then called me a prick?  So why don't you tell me why I am wrong?

And no, just calling "bullocks" is not a proper rebuttal.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 07:34:31 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.

Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate  towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.

Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.

Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.

It's not a very good analogy if you assume the existence of the very thing under question.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If we're assuming behavior we see on Earth, likely the top: either because it has more time to accelerate, or because the stream's thicker there, rather than a loose spray, though the latter case is down more to the analogy.

Basically you were asking if it had a downward force. This is why I mentioned a freezing waterfall.
You see at the bottom it would thin out and be thicker at the top because it's being squeezed.
Observe a slow running tap or an icicle on a roof.
You see the denser air at the bottom as opposed to the slightly less dense above is always squeezing a little harder as that water pushes the air out of the way.

But again, why does running horizontally through it work? Why doesn't the same behavior hold? We run horizontally, the air ahead of us compresses, pushes back. We jump, air fills in where we jumped from.

Because your legs and feet use the ground to plough you through it usinhg more of your mass to displace it in front of you which goes around you to push back onto you. All you are doing with the air above on you is allowing that to fill the void you left.
Jumping into it vertically is a different thing because you are still under a friction grip horizontally all around you so your head and shoulders have to compress the air above you whilst being held by the friction grip around your body, meaning you expend much more energy to overcome it.
Think of being stood in a vertical pipe with the sides fitting your body perfectly. At the bottom you have enough room to bend your legs to jump up. As you do this, you realise that the sides of the pipe have slowed your progress because your skin was friction gripped against the walls and your head and shoulders are trying to compress that air out of that pipe.
See what I'm saying?

Directions of pressure are dependent on energy, fine: but why is energy in the vertical different to energy in the horizontal? You're not explaining that.

Hopefully I explained that above.

You're doing the same thing again: insisting something's the case when your model doesn't explain it. I'll accept your model would, conceivably, allow for our bodies to be clamped down to a surface, but as soon as we go near a wall, why aren't we clamped to that? Why doesn't the stack take effect then?

Becasue the air around you is equalised horizontally. Above you your own body pushes against the ground whilst pushing against the atmosphere above you.
If you stand with your back to the wall then the wall acts as an equaliser to the pressure in front as a mere friction grip.
The grip is not strong enough to hold you up off the ground against your mass pushing up against the atmosphere. The ground is your foundation and your horizontal pressure is your balance in equal measures.

You're giving special treatment to the vertical because of what we observe, but nothing in your model explains it.
 

It does if you use your basic mind.

Take an arbitrary hollow cube. If there is air inside it, how does the pressure work? Would you be pinned to any surface within that cube?

No, because you are inside the same atmosphere only in a box.

If so, by walking up to the side of the cube, would you end up pinned to that other face, or would you remain on the face on which you stand? And either way, why? And, alternatively, if you'd only be pinned to one face (to cover all bases), why and how? What sets it apart?

As I mentioned above.

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 07:40:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 07:34:31 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.

Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate  towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.

Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.

Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.

Why don't you try it and see what happens.

I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.

Quote from: neimoka on February 25, 2015, 08:34:51 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 07:40:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 07:34:31 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.

Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate  towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.

Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.

Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.

Why don't you try it and see what happens.

I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.

Sokarul's experent was not flawed, he put an object on a scale and sucking the air out and the scale's value increased.  How would you propose that we test this?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 08:39:29 AM

Quote from: neimoka on February 25, 2015, 08:34:51 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 07:40:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 07:34:31 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.

Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate  towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.

Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.

Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.

Why don't you try it and see what happens.

I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.

Sokarul's experent was not flawed, he put an object on a scale and sucking the air out and the scale's value increased.  How would you propose that we test this?

By being honest.

By being honest.

Why do you think he was dishonest?  Don't give me any circular reasoning stuff like "He was lying because the Earth is flat because he was lying".

Quote from: neimoka on February 25, 2015, 08:34:51 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 07:40:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 07:34:31 AM

Quote from: MattiNasa on February 25, 2015, 06:51:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2015, 05:46:08 AM

I'm playing with basics of observations. Once this stuff comes into play it becomes pointless. I thought you might have been interested. I was wrong.

All you're doing here is making a basic understanding into the usual scientic one where people just get lost in it. I don't play this way.

Are you then implying that denpressure cannot be explained via any deterministic way where it would be possible to predict and compare measured values in repeatable manner?

In accelerating train it's easy do an experimentation by measuring air pressure on top of you and then in front of you.

yes you can measure it. I suggest some delicate scales with weight plate facing the car windscreen from the back of the car or maybe anchored central somehow.

Video the changes as you accelerate and at rest as well as constant speeds.
Then turn the scale plate  towards the rear window and centralise it in the car, the video the readout as you brake from speed.

Measure differences in air pressure at different locations at your car by using barometer.

Why do I predict that this will pan out exactly as measuring denpressure-predicted change of weight in vacuum chamber.

Why don't you try it and see what happens.

I want free thinkers to try this out. Sokarul's experiment was flawed to hell.

How was it flawed? 
Because it showed exactly the opposite as you predicted?
And once again, just calling "bullocks" on something doesn't constitute a rebuttal.