Gravity = Air Pressure

  • 501 Replies
  • 125629 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #420 on: February 25, 2015, 08:52:26 AM »
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".
He didn't do the test how I asked him to do it. Why don't you do it, you seem to know it all and have all the equipment that mankind invented.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #421 on: February 25, 2015, 08:57:28 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.
Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If  globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #422 on: February 25, 2015, 09:05:28 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.
Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If  globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.
Never said I knew him.  Just wanted to know why you think it is flawed.  Other than because you said so. 

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #423 on: February 25, 2015, 09:06:38 AM »
He didn't do the test how I asked him to do it. Why don't you do it, you seem to know it all and have all the equipment that mankind invented.

Unfortunately I don't have any access to vacuum chambers, but my brother owns an air compressor that I might be able to use to create a higher pressure environment to weigh something in, denpressure suggests that it would get heavier because there is more air and RET suggests that it would get lighter because of buoyancy.  How did you ask him do do the experiment by the way?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

MattiNasa

  • 23
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #424 on: February 25, 2015, 09:42:28 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.
Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If  globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.

Then why dont you do the experiment with barometer and accelerating car? You do trust yourself and that would be your chance to shine and prove your theory some credibility. If you can measure difference in pressure two meters above the ground then surely you can measure difference in pressure two meters in front of you in accelerating car. No fancy setups needed here. Video it and let the shame fall on us.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #425 on: February 25, 2015, 09:54:08 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.
Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If  globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.

Then why dont you do the experiment with barometer and accelerating car? You do trust yourself and that would be your chance to shine and prove your theory some credibility. If you can measure difference in pressure two meters above the ground then surely you can measure difference in pressure two meters in front of you in accelerating car. No fancy setups needed here. Video it and let the shame fall on us.
I'd like others to test it out as well, let's see what comes up.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #426 on: February 25, 2015, 09:58:16 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.
Don't pretend you know him and don't just decide it wasn't flawed. If  globalist said shit smells of perfume you'd give an equation for it and vouch for the globalist.
I don't trust you people. If that offends you then show me the way to trust you because nothing you people say comes across as trustworthy. Well, except a few. Bi Jane seems reasonably trustworthy. Well at least for now I accept her as that.

Then why dont you do the experiment with barometer and accelerating car? You do trust yourself and that would be your chance to shine and prove your theory some credibility. If you can measure difference in pressure two meters above the ground then surely you can measure difference in pressure two meters in front of you in accelerating car. No fancy setups needed here. Video it and let the shame fall on us.
I'd like others to test it out as well, let's see what comes up.
Please post the results of your tests.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #427 on: February 25, 2015, 09:58:39 AM »
Sceptic, Why?  I tested a scale in a vacuum and you said it was invalid. Any experiment that goes against your belief will also be invalid.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #428 on: February 25, 2015, 09:59:23 AM »
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?
Why make it a vertical pipe? Why not make it a horizontal pipe? You're under a friction grip above and below you when you move sideways, why does that go away?
If you jumped horizontally, are you saying you could only go as far horizontally as you could vertically, due to the fact the only possible force comes from air?

Quote
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.
So, horizontally, air is balanced? Force one way and subsequent compression can be disregarded, because the other side pushes? Meanwhile, the ground is stronger than the air, and not going to give way, so the air can only push down to try and expand?
Trying to understand what you're saying, would that be in any way accurate?

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?

I think I was unclear: I meant this in terms of a cube in pure vacuum, unaffected by the external force of our atmosphere. I'm just trying to get an image of how your force would work.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #429 on: February 25, 2015, 10:02:28 AM »
Sceptic, Why?  I tested a scale in a vacuum and you said it was invalid. Any experiment that goes against your belief will also be invalid.
I said it was flawed. You didn't do what I asked you to do.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • +0/-0
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #430 on: February 25, 2015, 10:04:42 AM »
Sceptic, Why?  I tested a scale in a vacuum and you said it was invalid. Any experiment that goes against your belief will also be invalid.
I said it was flawed. You didn't do what I asked you to do.

By your theory, when you take atmosphere out of a space things inside that space will be weightless.

He put a scale in a space and created a partial vacuum, video taping it and showing that there was not the predicted change in the scales displayed amount.

How is that flawed? Was it done on the wrong Tuesday? Or did it need to be on the harvest moon?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #431 on: February 25, 2015, 10:07:06 AM »
Sceptic, Why?  I tested a scale in a vacuum and you said it was invalid. Any experiment that goes against your belief will also be invalid.
I said it was flawed. You didn't do what I asked you to do.

By your theory, when you take atmosphere out of a space things inside that space will be weightless.

He put a scale in a space and created a partial vacuum, video taping it and showing that there was not the predicted change in the scales displayed amount.

How is that flawed? Was it done on the wrong Tuesday? Or did it need to be on the harvest moon?
It was obviously done on a day that ended in Y.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #432 on: February 25, 2015, 10:29:37 AM »
Why make it a vertical pipe? Why not make it a horizontal pipe? You're under a friction grip above and below you when you move sideways, why does that go away?
If you jumped horizontally, are you saying you could only go as far horizontally as you could vertically, due to the fact the only possible force comes from air?
Ok let's make this a bit more clear. You have to go on my theory of a dome, ok?
Now the dome covers this Earth's circle. Assuming you go with this, tell me what you think would happen if you fill the dome with molecules all the way to the top.

1. Tell me where the biggest pressure would be.

2. Where the least pressure would be.

Now when you do this, do not think of a compressed air tank under our sea level conditions. This is where people get scuppered.

You must think on a stacked atmosphere by pushing one molecules into it for as long as it takes to fill it to how we perceive it now.


Let me just add to this. If the Earth was simply flat with no atmosphere - say many x amount of years ago we assume it against a vacuum. A true vacuum.
Now then, let the first molecules begin being pushed up. The first layer holds no pressure upon the ground, or shall I say, extremely minute covering...but....it is frozen because it's at full expansion. The next molecules are pushed up against that and are now under pressure against that but also agitating it a little as they are pushed up, making it a semi solid to solid and so on and so on until it builds and expands and builds and expands to form the dome.
Like laying on your back and blowing a bubble.

So, horizontally, air is balanced? Force one way and subsequent compression can be disregarded, because the other side pushes? Meanwhile, the ground is stronger than the air, and not going to give way, so the air can only push down to try and expand?
Trying to understand what you're saying, would that be in any way accurate?
Think of it like this.

You're sitting in a bath hlding a bar of soap in one hand gripped around it whilst your other hand is under your gripped fist making sure the soap doesn't fall into the bath.

Ok so what we have here is your fist grips the soap. Let's call this the horizontal atmospheric grip.
Your other hand under that fist that the soap rests on is your ground.

Now imagine above the soap there is an elastic covering over the top of your fist that the top of the soap is pushing against.
Now imagine that soap expands in your fist. It tries to push  your fist apart but your fist grips back.
It also trieds to push against the elastic covering but that also pushes back.
The only thing stopping it falling into the bath is your other hand resisting all of that soaps attempts.

Now think of this as you breathing in the atmosphere whilst pushing yourself up on your tiptoes.
Can you understand this way?

I think I was unclear: I meant this in terms of a cube in pure vacuum, unaffected by the external force of our atmosphere. I'm just trying to get an image of how your force would work.
If the cube was in a pure vacuum, assuming it could, which it can't but for the sake of it we will pretend it could.
That cube would be in suspended animation. It would be as still as the Earth is in a true vacuum, like it is.
You see, no matter means no existence to us. A vacuum is a nothing. It's a blackness to our eyes because we simply cannot see through it, because the absence of all matter is the absence of anything at all, meaning nothing can move in it or shine in it.

What does this mean?

It means that the dome is frozen against that vacuum that we see as blackness. The reason we see points of light and a glowing sun, etc in the sky is because that  ice dome against the blackness creates the perfect cave mirror back to us.

The problem is, it's too high for us to actually make out a lot of stuff in detail. One thing for sure. Those mountain top telescope operators know what the hell is happening and they can see what Earth really is just by reflective light back to them.

They also see and can predict icicle falls from that dome which is why they can predict the comets they tell you about.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45133
  • +91/-135
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #433 on: February 25, 2015, 10:31:19 AM »
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.
???  So now energy pushes matter up towards the dome?  That means that there should be more air pressure the higher you go, not less.  Are you sure that you've thought this through?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #434 on: February 25, 2015, 10:59:50 AM »
Ok let's make this a bit more clear. You have to go on my theory of a dome, ok?
Now the dome covers this Earth's circle. Assuming you go with this, tell me what you think would happen if you fill the dome with molecules all the way to the top.

1. Tell me where the biggest pressure would be.

2. Where the least pressure would be.

Now when you do this, do not think of a compressed air tank under our sea level conditions. This is where people get scuppered.
Well one thing to take issue with is 'all the way to the top', but I see what you mean.
If air was put into the dome evenly, with no force, there's be complete equilibrium throughout it: no area of excess pressure. If it was overfilled, then the parts where the arc meets the flat edge would have the most pressure, followed by along the flat edge. The arc would maintain less pressure, so the area of least pressure would be between the centre and arc.
I'm fine with the notion that particles collide more at a boundary, as it causes a direction change. However, with no motion, that too would quickly sort out to equilibrium: no area with more pressure, because the air molecules wouldn't be able to keep going forever. Soon the pressure throughout would need to be even: it's only the act of inflation (adding air) that increases pressure. Common sense, wouldn't you say?
The motion of humans would barely register on any dome large enough to contain the Earth.

Plus, this still doesn't explain why horizontal motion is easier than vertical: if anything, it's the opposite. Either vertical motion is easier because as you jump, there's less pressure (and you haven't got to go against the much denser horizontal air), or the difference is negligible and they should be exactly the same as one another.

Quote
Now imagine above the soap there is an elastic covering over the top of your fist that the top of the soap is pushing against.
Let me stop you here. Why is the top covering elastic, rather than the same as the horizontal covering?
If you can happily model the top as a hand as well, then I do understand what you're saying, more or less.


Quote
If the cube was in a pure vacuum, assuming it could, which it can't but for the sake of it we will pretend it could...
I wasn't looking for a technical explanation of your dome, though it's appreciated, just an illustration of the force. If the hollow cube exists in void, with no external forces, how would pressure act?
I think I understand from your earlier explanation, but I want to be sure. Would it be right to say air is thickest at each face (on the inside), so that is where things would be pinned to?
If so, the obvious question is what would happen when you near another face. Would the pressure against said face drag you against it, or would you remain on the same face? And if the latter, why?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

neimoka

  • 738
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #435 on: February 25, 2015, 12:13:43 PM »
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.
I'm pretty sure you never explained exactly how it was flawed. It had a weight on a scale in a vacuum chamber and the reading didn't change as you had predicted and that was the end of it. If you saw something in there going wrong you should have just said what it is.

Air pressure measurements in general are something I could do, I have access to such instruments. You have previously shown zero cooperation for proposed measurements of denpressure, what's with the change of heart? You know I could still measure how much more pressure there is by the the surface of different objects, to see how it changes by how much they weigh. Or how much more fluid a 10cc piece of steel displaces than a 10cc piece of aluminium. I'm extremely skeptical  of if there's any point in doing these tests though, having seen how well you received the vacuum chamber test.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #436 on: February 26, 2015, 12:56:24 AM »
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.
???  So now energy pushes matter up towards the dome?  That means that there should be more air pressure the higher you go, not less.  Are you sure that you've thought this through?
Absolutely I'm sure. It's you people that don't think things through and can't grasp a simple concept. That's because your brains are scattered with nonsense theories indoctrinated into them, such as gravity.

When you understand push on push, let me know and I'll try and help you from there.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #437 on: February 26, 2015, 01:20:48 AM »

Well one thing to take issue with is 'all the way to the top', but I see what you mean.
If air was put into the dome evenly, with no force, there's be complete equilibrium throughout it: no area of excess pressure.
No there wouldn't. The immediate point of energy that starts this process comes from the centre.
From that centre is where it pushes out matter and recycles it.
Think of the fountain. water is pushed up and itcreates a dome like fan out, then it's recycled to keep going.
That is the ultimate in neanderthal basic I'm talking here just to give you an insight into the suns energy. Most globalists can't grasp analogies like this. It appears you can.
Anyway, so it's a build from the centre and just like you sitting under a blanket, you see how it spreads out around you and creates a tent like dome.
Look at a bubble in your sink laying on top of water. It's a dome and it's created in a similar way.
It's all here to look at if people can look at it basically and not be skewed by nonsense science.
If it was overfilled, then the parts where the arc meets the flat edge would have the most pressure, followed by along the flat edge. The arc would maintain less pressure, so the area of least pressure would be between the centre and arc.
You're thinking of a brick arch or whatever under atmospheric pressure. You're not thinking on the right lines.


I'm fine with the notion that particles collide more at a boundary, as it causes a direction change. However, with no motion, that too would quickly sort out to equilibrium: no area with more pressure, because the air molecules wouldn't be able to keep going forever. Soon the pressure throughout would need to be even: it's only the act of inflation (adding air) that increases pressure. Common sense, wouldn't you say?
There's always motion. The sun sees to that. It's a constant feed and recycle. This is why we have worldwide winds and pressure changes. The matter in everything is always expanding and contracting, always.
The only time this stops is when the energy of Earth's sun stops, which will be never because nothing gets destroyed, just recycled.

The motion of humans would barely register on any dome large enough to contain the Earth.
It's not just about us. We are mere bacteria in terms of energy given out and taken in.
The real energy is the central sun. We are just feeding off that like everything else and feeding IT.



Plus, this still doesn't explain why horizontal motion is easier than vertical: if anything, it's the opposite. Either vertical motion is easier because as you jump, there's less pressure (and you haven't got to go against the much denser horizontal air), or the difference is negligible and they should be exactly the same as one another.
You are forgetting the friction grip on your body. I explained this. If you can't grasp it then fair enough.
I wasn't looking for a technical explanation of your dome, though it's appreciated, just an illustration of the force. If the hollow cube exists in void, with no external forces, how would pressure act?
It wouldn't act. There would be none to act.

I think I understand from your earlier explanation, but I want to be sure. Would it be right to say air is thickest at each face (on the inside), so that is where things would be pinned to?
Nope. If air is inside and you are too then your mass/density decides where the air goes by displacing it.

If so, the obvious question is what would happen when you near another face. Would the pressure against said face drag you against it, or would you remain on the same face? And if the latter, why?
The only time you would be pushed against a wall is if wind pressure pushed you against it. Now if you are in a cube then the only thing that would keep you pinned to the wall of it is acceleration which would compress the air to the back and pin you with it if it's fast enough.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #438 on: February 26, 2015, 01:23:16 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.
I'm pretty sure you never explained exactly how it was flawed. It had a weight on a scale in a vacuum chamber and the reading didn't change as you had predicted and that was the end of it. If you saw something in there going wrong you should have just said what it is.

Air pressure measurements in general are something I could do, I have access to such instruments. You have previously shown zero cooperation for proposed measurements of denpressure, what's with the change of heart? You know I could still measure how much more pressure there is by the the surface of different objects, to see how it changes by how much they weigh. Or how much more fluid a 10cc piece of steel displaces than a 10cc piece of aluminium. I'm extremely skeptical  of if there's any point in doing these tests though, having seen how well you received the vacuum chamber test.
Don't do it for me. Do it for yourself. Surely you want to find the truth don't you?
You don't need me for that. I'm just aiding you in doing it. If like Sokarul you are dishonest then you are only being dishonest with yourself.
Do the experiments for you and see how many you can perform that nails it one way or the other for you.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #439 on: February 26, 2015, 03:11:03 AM »
If it was overfilled, then the parts where the arc meets the flat edge would have the most pressure, followed by along the flat edge. The arc would maintain less pressure, so the area of least pressure would be between the centre and arc.
You're thinking of a brick arch or whatever under atmospheric pressure. You're not thinking on the right lines.
I'm thinking in terms of collisions: collisions being the cause of pressure, and the only way matter can interact with matter (barring forces like magnetism). It seems reasonable that there would be more collisions when arc meets line, as the two are closer. Similarly, there's much more along the arc for molecules to hit, meaning the pressure at any one point should be less than that along the lower line.


Quote
There's always motion. The sun sees to that. It's a constant feed and recycle. This is why we have worldwide winds and pressure changes. The matter in everything is always expanding and contracting, always.
That I think I can agree with: it prevents equilibrium, keeps the air moving. There's the question of creation, but that's not worth going into here. Thanks for the answer.

Quote
You are forgetting the friction grip on your body. I explained this. If you can't grasp it then fair enough.
The question is why this grip only acts in one direction. if I jump up, friction grips both my sides, and the air 'above' me pulls me down: fine. But then, if I move sideways, there's still air pressure to push against, and a friction grip of air above me, plus the ground below me with even more friction. Either way, at some point I'm completely surrounded by air and air alone: and that air has no concept of where up or down is, and yet it, without fail, pulls me down: and never pushes me back to where I started on the horizontal plane.
The only possibility I can see is how air has somewhere to go when you move horizontally, as the ground's not in the way: but the space occupied by the ground is minimal, and you just need to jump off a diving board to see it makes little difference. Jumping upwards doesn't make a vacuum below you: air moves in.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #440 on: February 26, 2015, 03:46:47 AM »
Quote from: BiJane link=topic=62317.msg1664480#msg1664480

I'm thinking in terms of collisions: collisions being the cause of pressure, and the only way matter can interact with matter (barring forces like magnetism). It seems reasonable that there would be more collisions when arc meets line, as the two are closer. Similarly, there's much more along the arc for molecules to hit, meaning the pressure at any one point should be less than that along the lower line.
Seeing as I believe you are logically smart and intelligent, I'd like you to think on my lines. I'm not asking you to accept and I welcome criticism or questioning, just do me the favour of not thinking on the lines of gravity to do this.

That being said, I want you to think of atmosphere, not as you have been told, as in particles just fizzing about in any directions they want with freedom - just think of the atmosphere of molecules as bubbles in a sink. No space between the bubbles and bear in mind that each bubble is a skin within a skin within a skin. It's like a gob stopper (jaw breaker) inner just like all matter is. It expands or contracts.

I'm not asking you to accept this I'm asking you to see it from my point.
Now this being said, what we have are molecules that never seperate. They are always attached whether they pop to your eye view or expand.
It's hard to imagine by just trying to visualise. It requires thought - but basic thought, which seems plain and simple - and it is - except it isn't when your thoughts are channelled into a more complex situation from what you've been schooled into. See what I mean?

Oh and yeah: why should you take notice of a bozo like me who's clearly as stupid as they come. Fair enough. My basic explanations will always garner this thought in people. I'm not having a dig at you by saying this. I'm basically saying it's more of a trait among people to dismiss out of hand rather than say, " hang on a minute, let me change aspect here and look into this."

I'm serious when I say you possess the logic to actually look at this. The only issue you have is playing it from your point without interference from people who will believe you are changing your stance on things.

This isn't about arguing and getting one over each other. This is about you having an alternate view.
I understand you know maths and what not and how it can be used for certain things. The thing is (if you are honest) most of the way out maths requires little to no use other than theoretical thought processess.
Anyway I'm just saying - and I don't want to argue about maths as it's not needed for basic understanding of what I'm getting at.
Quote from: BiJane link=topic=62317.msg1664480#msg1664480
date=1424949063]The question is why this grip only acts in one direction. if I jump up, friction grips both my sides, and the air 'above' me pulls me down:
No it doesn't pull you down. That's why I implore you look deeply into what I'm telling you.
Your own mass and density of your full body expands into the atmosphere. You compress that atmosphere by rising into it and displacing your mass and density of your body against that. Moving that mass of air away from your body.

Think of it like this.
A big tub of sponge balls. You push into it from the bottom. What happens?

The sponge balls are pushed out of the way by your mass. What happens to them?
In terms of the tub, those sponge balls you displaced are now squashing each other around you and squashing back against you.
Those above your head and shoulder are also squashed upwards.
Your feet are stopping them pushing you into the ground and your body is strong enough to easily resist that.
Now try and jump up and you realise that your head and shoulders are pushing into the compressed sponges and compressing them more but they get pushed around you creating a friction grip as well.

Now if that tub was large enough and you walked horizontally in it, you are not compressing the balls above you any more than you were at the start. Also you are walking away from the sponge balls behind you and compressing the ones in front a bit more which get pushed back around you which push into the looser ones you left and compress against them and back onto your back. It's a classic action/reaction.
You see, all you need is the immediate energy to start the action, then the atmosphere works with you from that point by always filling in your pressure change.
You create high pressure at the front by compression and decompress slightly the balls you walk away from, creating high and low pressure.

See what I'm saying?

 
Quote from: BiJane link=topic=62317.msg1664480#msg1664480
date=1424949063]fine. But then, if I move sideways, there's still air pressure to push against, and a friction grip of air above me, plus the ground below me with even more friction.
Yep but as above, your horizontal movement is sorted so now we have the above as you walk horizontal.
When you walk you do the same thing, your head moves forward and leaves that head space to be filled as you compress into that space you're in now. It just compresses back around you.
It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action. We can't survive without it. This is why Newtons laws do not work in what we are told is space. It's a con to keep space alive.
We won't go into this though as it just starts to go twisted.

Quote from: BiJane link=topic=62317.msg1664480#msg1664480
date=1424949063] Either way, at some point I'm completely surrounded by air and air alone: and that air has no concept of where up or down is, and yet it, without fail, pulls me down: and never pushes me back to where I started on the horizontal plane.

Like I said. There is never a PULL on Earth in any form whatsoever. It's always push no matter what you do. It's all about understanding it though.
You control the space you're in. That space you are in determines your measured weight by your own displacement of atmosphere by compression.
Quote from: BiJane link=topic=62317.msg1664480#msg1664480
date=1424949063]The only possibility I can see is how air has somewhere to go when you move horizontally, as the ground's not in the way: but the space occupied by the ground is minimal, and you just need to jump off a diving board to see it makes little difference. Jumping upwards doesn't make a vacuum below you: air moves in.
A diving board is a solid base. When you push down on it and launch yourself, you are using your own mass/density to push the floor away from you like a spongy spring (action) which will equally push back onto your mass/density (reaction) to allow you to compress more air above you which will react accordingly in the same manner by compressing you back down.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 04:21:04 AM by sceptimatic »

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #441 on: February 26, 2015, 03:52:34 AM »
This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #442 on: February 26, 2015, 03:59:38 AM »
This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.
Of course. It just depends on how you choose to look at it.
We all work by compression and our abaility to fight against it. It's a fight that is required for us to survive as it is with anything.

Your breathing alone is your energy expanding the atmosphere around you. that atmosphere is now compressed by that expanded chest, etc. It now exerts that same pressure back onto you. It's called breathing and the Earth and everything in it is required to do this to live.

Just like a hot air balloon will stay on the ground until you add more energy to expand it to lift you up in it. You're being pushed up.
Now imagine that hot air balloon at full rest on scales. Now light the burner and fill it. You see that your weight measurement and that of the whole balloon make up, gets lighter.
It's called being pushed up due to energy applied.

?

herewegoround

  • 286
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #443 on: February 26, 2015, 04:42:17 AM »
This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.

It means sceptimatic needs psychiatric help.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #444 on: February 26, 2015, 05:09:59 AM »
I'm not asking you to accept this I'm asking you to see it from my point.
At this point I'm not too concerned with the evidence for/against aspects of your view, I'm just trying to understand what it is you're proposing, and how it matches with the world. Thank you for the illustration of air as expanding bubbles. That does make more sense.


Quote
No it doesn't pull you down.
Bad choice of words, sorry.

Quote
Think of it like this.
A big tub of sponge balls...

My main issue with these kinds of illustrations is that, clearly, I think there is a downwards force: so it feels a lot like you're appealing to one. My problem is, without that being there to alter matters, it you jumped up, while the balls above you would resist, those underneath you would also resist your descent, as they'd expand into the gap. With only upwards air pressure to push you down, in combination with horizontal friction and further air pressure from below you, there'd be nothing to make you move.
Further, there should be no difference (without a downwards force) between walking from the wall, in of the tub, and trying to ascend from the bottom. Think of it as a L shape: out of context, there's no way for you to tell which is the horizontal stroke, and which is the vertical. In your proposal, there's no difference between standing with your back to the wall, and lying on the floor with your feet on the wall: and yet you can only walk forwards in one of those cases.
After all, if you push a sponge ball up, out of the tub, what would make it fall back down in lieu of a downwards force? The only explanation would be to have more sponge balls there to expand to force it back, but that's identical to the horizontal behaviour.

You give a lot of examples, but none of them explain why air behaves differently in the vertical and horizontal: if a downwards force is removed, there's no explanation.
I think the main point is: lying on your back at the bottom of the ball pit, and standing with your back to the wall, what is the difference between those two behaviours? Air rushes in behind you in either cases: and, indeed, moving vertically the air pressure is less dramatic higher up, so there should actually be less difficulty in moving that way.

 
Quote
When you walk you do the same thing, your head moves forward and leaves that head space to be filled as you compress into that space you're in now. It just compresses back around you.
It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action.
And if you move vertically, air rushes in to where your feet were: or if you lie on your back and try to walk up a wall, the physics should be the exact same, and air rushes into the head space when you lift it.

Quote
A diving board is a solid base. When you push down on it and launch yourself, you are using your own mass/density to push the floor away from you like a spongy spring (action) which will equally push back onto your mass/density (reaction) to allow you to compress more air above you which will react accordingly in the same manner by compressing you back down.
My main problem with the equal/opposite reaction explanation is that, if it applies, it should also apply in the horizontal. Why is it air's allowed to force you back when moving vertically, and yet gets balanced by a force going to the other side of your horizontally, when they should both keep happening in either case?
I could see how that might be able to make sense (at first glance, haven't considered too much) on a totally flat plane with completely even horizontal pressure, but that's too ideal to be of any use. For starters, the world we're on is not completely flat: houses, mountains, trees... Air should resist against each one of those things. (see, the wall example again).
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #445 on: February 26, 2015, 05:17:11 AM »
If the atmosphere is just bubbles all attached to each other why do we get wind? Or gaseous diffusion?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #446 on: February 26, 2015, 05:34:09 AM »
This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.
Of course.
Atmospheric pressure keeps changing, why not the weight of a bag of sugar?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #447 on: February 26, 2015, 05:35:14 AM »
I'm not asking you to accept this I'm asking you to see it from my point.
At this point I'm not too concerned with the evidence for/against aspects of your view, I'm just trying to understand what it is you're proposing, and how it matches with the world. Thank you for the illustration of air as expanding bubbles. That does make more sense.


Quote
No it doesn't pull you down.
Bad choice of words, sorry.

Quote
Think of it like this.
A big tub of sponge balls...

My main issue with these kinds of illustrations is that, clearly, I think there is a downwards force: so it feels a lot like you're appealing to one. My problem is, without that being there to alter matters, it you jumped up, while the balls above you would resist, those underneath you would also resist your descent, as they'd expand into the gap. With only upwards air pressure to push you down, in combination with horizontal friction and further air pressure from below you, there'd be nothing to make you move.
Further, there should be no difference (without a downwards force) between walking from the wall, in of the tub, and trying to ascend from the bottom. Think of it as a L shape: out of context, there's no way for you to tell which is the horizontal stroke, and which is the vertical. In your proposal, there's no difference between standing with your back to the wall, and lying on the floor with your feet on the wall: and yet you can only walk forwards in one of those cases.
After all, if you push a sponge ball up, out of the tub, what would make it fall back down in lieu of a downwards force? The only explanation would be to have more sponge balls there to expand to force it back, but that's identical to the horizontal behaviour.

You give a lot of examples, but none of them explain why air behaves differently in the vertical and horizontal: if a downwards force is removed, there's no explanation.
I think the main point is: lying on your back at the bottom of the ball pit, and standing with your back to the wall, what is the difference between those two behaviours? Air rushes in behind you in either cases: and, indeed, moving vertically the air pressure is less dramatic higher up, so there should actually be less difficulty in moving that way.

 
Quote
When you walk you do the same thing, your head moves forward and leaves that head space to be filled as you compress into that space you're in now. It just compresses back around you.
It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action.
And if you move vertically, air rushes in to where your feet were: or if you lie on your back and try to walk up a wall, the physics should be the exact same, and air rushes into the head space when you lift it.

Quote
A diving board is a solid base. When you push down on it and launch yourself, you are using your own mass/density to push the floor away from you like a spongy spring (action) which will equally push back onto your mass/density (reaction) to allow you to compress more air above you which will react accordingly in the same manner by compressing you back down.
My main problem with the equal/opposite reaction explanation is that, if it applies, it should also apply in the horizontal. Why is it air's allowed to force you back when moving vertically, and yet gets balanced by a force going to the other side of your horizontally, when they should both keep happening in either case?
I could see how that might be able to make sense (at first glance, haven't considered too much) on a totally flat plane with completely even horizontal pressure, but that's too ideal to be of any use. For starters, the world we're on is not completely flat: houses, mountains, trees... Air should resist against each one of those things. (see, the wall example again).
Ok no problem. I tried but I can see you resisting. We'll leave it at that. Fair enough for trying.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #448 on: February 26, 2015, 05:35:55 AM »
If the atmosphere is just bubbles all attached to each other why do we get wind? Or gaseous diffusion?
I'm wasting my time explaining anything to you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« Reply #449 on: February 26, 2015, 05:36:45 AM »
This means the weight of an object varies depending on the atmospheric pressure.
Of course.
Atmospheric pressure keeps changing, why not the weight of a bag of sugar?
I'm also wasting my time explaining anything to you, also.