Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

I believe you may be right. It makes sense to me.

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Except that air pressure works in every direction equally, so we'd just float around. Oops. Didn't mean to disprove it so quickly.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 11:20:58 AM

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Except that air pressure works in every direction equally, so we'd just float around. Oops. Didn't mean to disprove it so quickly.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Saying what you have is proof of that.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 11:20:58 AM

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Except that air pressure works in every direction equally, so we'd just float around. Oops. Didn't mean to disprove it so quickly.

If you have compressed air in a scuba tank, is there more strain on the top and bottom of the cylinder, with more distance between them, or on the sides, which are closer together? If you note the movement of the air particles, there are more collisions on the sides, and so more pressure on the sides, because the particles will bounce off the far wall far more often.
As the Earth is incredibly wide, fluidic space is closer, so there is far more vertical force.

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Easily refuted. Air pressure on top of mountains is much lower at mountains than it is at sea level, yet the change on downward acceleration is minimal. At the top of the Everest, air pressure is only ~33% of the sea level, but the downward acceleration is less than 0,3% lower than sea level acceleration.

Another way to refutate this: Air pressure changes daily, e.g. air pressure drops before a storm with no changes on the downward acceleration.

Therefore it is false, nonsense, and in no way verifiable by scientific method.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 07, 2015, 12:58:40 PM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 11:20:58 AM

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Except that air pressure works in every direction equally, so we'd just float around. Oops. Didn't mean to disprove it so quickly.

If you have compressed air in a scuba tank, is there more strain on the top and bottom of the cylinder, with more distance between them, or on the sides, which are closer together? If you note the movement of the air particles, there are more collisions on the sides, and so more pressure on the sides, because the particles will bounce off the far wall far more often.
As the Earth is incredibly wide, fluidic space is closer, so there is far more vertical force.

Equal strain everywhere inside it. Distances within the tank does not matter, at all.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 03:23:39 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 07, 2015, 12:58:40 PM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 11:20:58 AM

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Except that air pressure works in every direction equally, so we'd just float around. Oops. Didn't mean to disprove it so quickly.

If you have compressed air in a scuba tank, is there more strain on the top and bottom of the cylinder, with more distance between them, or on the sides, which are closer together? If you note the movement of the air particles, there are more collisions on the sides, and so more pressure on the sides, because the particles will bounce off the far wall far more often.
As the Earth is incredibly wide, fluidic space is closer, so there is far more vertical force.

Equal strain everywhere inside it. Distances within the tank does not matter, at all.

I told you why this was not true. The pressure is caused by the collisions with air molecules. There will be more of these at closer walls.

Easily refuted. Air pressure on top of mountains is much lower at mountains than it is at sea level, yet the change on downward acceleration is minimal. At the top of the Everest, air pressure is only ~33% of the sea level, but the downward acceleration is less than 0,3% lower than sea level acceleration.

So the change is not linear. I don't see how that's a refutation.

Another way to refutate this: Air pressure changes daily, e.g. air pressure drops before a storm with no changes on the downward acceleration.

And as you've pointed out, it takes a much greater reduction in air pressure for the change to be even slightly noticable.

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 08, 2015, 01:27:10 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 03:23:39 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 07, 2015, 12:58:40 PM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 11:20:58 AM

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Except that air pressure works in every direction equally, so we'd just float around. Oops. Didn't mean to disprove it so quickly.

If you have compressed air in a scuba tank, is there more strain on the top and bottom of the cylinder, with more distance between them, or on the sides, which are closer together? If you note the movement of the air particles, there are more collisions on the sides, and so more pressure on the sides, because the particles will bounce off the far wall far more often.
As the Earth is incredibly wide, fluidic space is closer, so there is far more vertical force.

Equal strain everywhere inside it. Distances within the tank does not matter, at all.

I told you why this was not true. The pressure is caused by the collisions with air molecules. There will be more of these at closer walls.

Nope. You made up some BS pseudo-science and claimed it to be true. There will be just as many collisions between air molecules and the walls everywhere inside the tank as anywhere else inside the tank. Distance has nothing to do with frequency. Sure, molecules will have less time to travel between the closer walls, but there are more molecules in motion between the far-apart walls. If we take a tube tank, where the inside is measure to be 0.5m x 0.25m, and we say that you can fit (with the pressure that will be in this tank) 1 million air molecules (we assume air molecules are more or less equally distributed) in a 1m length. The air molecules travel at, let's say roughly 100m/s (may not be coherent with reality, but this is just a thought experiment). For the short distance there will be 250 000 air molecules between two opposite points. It takes 0.0025s for a molecule to travel from one side to the other. That means that in 1s, each air molecule will collide with the walls roughly 400 times. A single point in the walls will therefore be hit 200 times per second from each molecule, or for a total of 100 million times each second from all air molecules in between that point and the opposite point. So each point in the walls with short distance between each other will experience 100 million collisions per second. For the walls with long distance, travel time is doubled, but so are the total number of molecules. So each molecule will hit a single point in either wall 100 times per second (each molecule will travel the long distance 200 times per second). For all 500 000 molecules, that means that a single point in the walls that has a long distance between them will experience 100 million collisions per second. The exact same amount as for the walls with short distance. So every point in the pressure tank will be subjected to equal pressure.

If every point in a tank was equal pressure then all tanks would be spherical. There's a reason why tanks can be long with rounded bulbous ends, it's because atmosphere stacks  and molecules of air do not just jump about like you suggest. I told you that they are compressed and push on push or push against resistance to push, both ways due to the molecules being compressed from their expanded state.

It's like trying to keep many sponge-balls squashed into a tank. the more you squash in, the more pressurised that tank becomes.
Because those sponge-balls are pushing from bottom to top/top to bottom, they would have a natural tendency to bow in the middle but obviously the tank walls prevent that.

Think of it like an arch. You know that the pressure on the top of it is spread down the sides to the ground.
Now think of the bulbous head and bottom of a long tank.

This scientific bullshit about molecules just jumping about at certain speeds should be seen to be just that.
The reason why molecules jump about is because they are under pressure and agitation changes their expansion rates depending where those molecules are in any specific encasement.

To make it simpler, it''s like looking at a boiling kettle. You see the bubbles expanding out of the top into the air but the agitation starts from the temperature change at the bottom, causing the more compressed water molecules to expand against the less compressed, due to energy of a heating element.

The same happens in atmosphere.

If every point in a tank was equal pressure then all tanks would be spherical. There's a reason why tanks can be long with rounded bulbous ends, it's because atmosphere stacks  and molecules of air do not just jump about like you suggest. I told you that they are compressed and push on push or push against resistance to push, both ways due to the molecules being compressed from their expanded state.

It's like trying to keep many sponge-balls squashed into a tank. the more you squash in, the more pressurised that tank becomes.
Because those sponge-balls are pushing from bottom to top/top to bottom, they would have a natural tendency to bow in the middle but obviously the tank walls prevent that.

Think of it like an arch. You know that the pressure on the top of it is spread down the sides to the ground.
Now think of the bulbous head and bottom of a long tank.

This scientific bullshit about molecules just jumping about at certain speeds should be seen to be just that.
The reason why molecules jump about is because they are under pressure and agitation changes their expansion rates depending where those molecules are in any specific encasement.

To make it simpler, it''s like looking at a boiling kettle. You see the bubbles expanding out of the top into the air but the agitation starts from the temperature change at the bottom, causing the more compressed water molecules to expand against the less compressed, due to energy of a heating element.

The same happens in atmosphere.

Next time, read my post before responding to it. Yes, I can see from your post that you definitely did not read my post properly.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 08, 2015, 02:11:41 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 08, 2015, 01:27:10 AM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 03:23:39 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on November 07, 2015, 12:58:40 PM

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 07, 2015, 11:20:58 AM

Everyone knows the problem with universal acceleration: it needs infinite energy.
Gravity remains fundamentally unexplained, reliant too must on 'just so' storytelling.

Denpressure, reliance on air pressure (analogous to compressed air: compressed by fluidic space) keeping us on the Earth is the only option that makes sense. Logical, testable sense.

Except that air pressure works in every direction equally, so we'd just float around. Oops. Didn't mean to disprove it so quickly.

If you have compressed air in a scuba tank, is there more strain on the top and bottom of the cylinder, with more distance between them, or on the sides, which are closer together? If you note the movement of the air particles, there are more collisions on the sides, and so more pressure on the sides, because the particles will bounce off the far wall far more often.
As the Earth is incredibly wide, fluidic space is closer, so there is far more vertical force.

Equal strain everywhere inside it. Distances within the tank does not matter, at all.

I told you why this was not true. The pressure is caused by the collisions with air molecules. There will be more of these at closer walls.

Nope. You made up some BS pseudo-science and claimed it to be true. There will be just as many collisions between air molecules and the walls everywhere inside the tank as anywhere else inside the tank. Distance has nothing to do with frequency. Sure, molecules will have less time to travel between the closer walls, but there are more molecules in motion between the far-apart walls. If we take a tube tank, where the inside is measure to be 0.5m x 0.25m, and we say that you can fit (with the pressure that will be in this tank) 1 million air molecules (we assume air molecules are more or less equally distributed) in a 1m length. The air molecules travel at, let's say roughly 100m/s (may not be coherent with reality, but this is just a thought experiment). For the short distance there will be 250 000 air molecules between two opposite points. It takes 0.0025s for a molecule to travel from one side to the other. That means that in 1s, each air molecule will collide with the walls roughly 400 times. A single point in the walls will therefore be hit 200 times per second from each molecule, or for a total of 100 million times each second from all air molecules in between that point and the opposite point. So each point in the walls with short distance between each other will experience 100 million collisions per second. For the walls with long distance, travel time is doubled, but so are the total number of molecules. So each molecule will hit a single point in either wall 100 times per second (each molecule will travel the long distance 200 times per second). For all 500 000 molecules, that means that a single point in the walls that has a long distance between them will experience 100 million collisions per second. The exact same amount as for the walls with short distance. So every point in the pressure tank will be subjected to equal pressure.

That simply isn't true. There are more molecules between the top and the bottom, but that doesn't matter unless they're going in the right direction. If you begin with equally dispersed air, the amount of air in contact with the smaller edges will be the same as the sides: but the time take for air to move from one end to the other (the primary cause of vertical motion) will mean there is less force, while there is far more collision at the sides.

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 07, 2015, 04:21:16 PM

Easily refuted. Air pressure on top of mountains is much lower at mountains than it is at sea level, yet the change on downward acceleration is minimal. At the top of the Everest, air pressure is only ~33% of the sea level, but the downward acceleration is less than 0,3% lower than sea level acceleration.

So the change is not linear.

Why isn't it linear?  And if not linear, take us through the equation to calculate weight given a particular air pressure.


[/quote]
And as you've pointed out, it takes a much greater reduction in air pressure for the change to be even slightly noticable.
[/quote]
Why?


Also, what it so special about down?  If air pressure causes weight, then everything should float up, towards lower air pressure, rather than down towards higher.  If I jump off a building, why do I fall down, not float off.

Oh, and what causes air pressure in the first place, if not gravity?

That simply isn't true.

Citation needed.

There are more molecules between the top and the bottom, but that doesn't matter unless they're going in the right direction.

We can assume that all possible directions have equal distribution, and the same goes for the short distance. In my tank, for every molecule that goes the right direction the short distance, there should be 2 molecules along the long distance that goes in the right direction, since for every molecule in the short distance there are 2 molecules in the long distance.

If you begin with equally dispersed air, the amount of air in contact with the smaller edges will be the same as the sides: but the time take for air to move from one end to the other (the primary cause of vertical motion) will mean there is less force, while there is far more collision at the sides.

1. I don't know what you mean with edges and sides. You have to clarify yourself. A tubular pressure tank have no edges, I guess you meant ends. And if that is the case I know what you mean with sides. I'll assume you meant ends.

2. "the amount of air in contact with the smaller edges will be the same as the sides" Not precisely true. For two points with the same area, one on the sides and one on either edge, they will have equally many air molecules in contact to them.

3. How is "time to move from one end to the other" a primary cause of vertical motion? "See, it takes time to go from one end to another, that is the main reason why the motion will be vertical". What? That doesn't make sense at all.

4. What kind of connection has time and force in this case, at all?

5. I just provided a calculation that shows that the number of collision is equal. And this is anyways well documented FACT that pressure is equal. Unless there is a resisting force gases will equalize.That's why you can measure the pressure inside a car tire without putting a measuring device inside it - you connect the tire to a remote device that measures the pressure. since this device has many times smaller volume than car tires, is it your opinion that it would show a pressure far higher than actually exists inside the car tire?

So the change is not linear. I don't see how that's a refutation.

Very well.

If pressure is the cause for the downwards force... Why do objects inside vaccum chambers NEVER LOSE ANY WEIGHT? Since weight is a force equal to mass times the downward acceleration, why do they keep the same WEIGHT inside a vaccum chamber? Shouldn't they FLOAT or at least lose SOME of it's weight?

Yes, that's a refutation to your ridiculous claims.

And as you've pointed out, it takes a much greater reduction in air pressure for the change to be even slightly noticable.

Vaccum chamber reduces pressure to a much lower level that that at top of the everest, with absolute no weight loss to what's inside it. Therefore, the influence of pressure on the downward acceleration is now disproved.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 08, 2015, 02:13:31 AM

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 07, 2015, 04:21:16 PM

Easily refuted. Air pressure on top of mountains is much lower at mountains than it is at sea level, yet the change on downward acceleration is minimal. At the top of the Everest, air pressure is only ~33% of the sea level, but the downward acceleration is less than 0,3% lower than sea level acceleration.

So the change is not linear.

Why isn't it linear?  And if not linear, take us through the equation to calculate weight given a particular air pressure.

And as you've pointed out, it takes a much greater reduction in air pressure for the change to be even slightly noticable.
[/quote]
Why?


Also, what it so special about down?  If air pressure causes weight, then everything should float up, towards lower air pressure, rather than down towards higher.  If I jump off a building, why do I fall down, not float off.

Oh, and what causes air pressure in the first place, if not gravity?
[/quote]

Why would it be linear? Not everything is.
Compression causes the force. As we are at one side of a compressed amount of air, we are kept to that side.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 08, 2015, 08:04:13 AM

That simply isn't true.

Citation needed.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 08, 2015, 08:04:13 AM

There are more molecules between the top and the bottom, but that doesn't matter unless they're going in the right direction.

We can assume that all possible directions have equal distribution, and the same goes for the short distance. In my tank, for every molecule that goes the right direction the short distance, there should be 2 molecules along the long distance that goes in the right direction, since for every molecule in the short distance there are 2 molecules in the long distance.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 08, 2015, 08:04:13 AM

If you begin with equally dispersed air, the amount of air in contact with the smaller edges will be the same as the sides: but the time take for air to move from one end to the other (the primary cause of vertical motion) will mean there is less force, while there is far more collision at the sides.

1. I don't know what you mean with edges and sides. You have to clarify yourself. A tubular pressure tank have no edges, I guess you meant ends. And if that is the case I know what you mean with sides. I'll assume you meant ends.

2. "the amount of air in contact with the smaller edges will be the same as the sides" Not precisely true. For two points with the same area, one on the sides and one on either edge, they will have equally many air molecules in contact to them.

3. How is "time to move from one end to the other" a primary cause of vertical motion? "See, it takes time to go from one end to another, that is the main reason why the motion will be vertical". What? That doesn't make sense at all.

4. What kind of connection has time and force in this case, at all?

5. I just provided a calculation that shows that the number of collision is equal. And this is anyways well documented FACT that pressure is equal. Unless there is a resisting force gases will equalize.That's why you can measure the pressure inside a car tire without putting a measuring device inside it - you connect the tire to a remote device that measures the pressure. since this device has many times smaller volume than car tires, is it your opinion that it would show a pressure far higher than actually exists inside the car tire?

Citation given.
Think of it like this. For simplicity, let's say the surface area of the end of a tank is quarter that of a side. Model it as a cuboid, the principle is clearly shared. Let's also make it twice as long as it is wide. Width w (with units measured in air molecules, which we assume are equally spaced and so can be used as such), and the amount of air molecules hitting one end is n. Breadth cancels.

So:
There are 4n air molecules against one side, and n against one end. For air molecules to collide with a side, they must be going in the right direction. In the absence of an external force, this is only possible if they are bouncing off another surface. Ignoring side-to-end and end-to-side collisions (which will balance out), this means there are 2wn molecules heading towards an end (those on the surface times the space in between): there are, however, 4wn heading towards each edge, because there are more heading in the correct direction to collide.
So long as the right relationship holds, that is that the surface area of a side is large enough compared to the width, the pressure we observe will exist.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 08, 2015, 02:13:31 AM

So the change is not linear. I don't see how that's a refutation.

Very well.

If pressure is the cause for the downwards force... Why do objects inside vaccum chambers NEVER LOSE ANY WEIGHT? Since weight is a force equal to mass times the downward acceleration, why do they keep the same WEIGHT inside a vaccum chamber? Shouldn't they FLOAT or at least lose SOME of it's weight?

Yes, that's a refutation to your ridiculous claims.

Quote

And as you've pointed out, it takes a much greater reduction in air pressure for the change to be even slightly noticable.

Vaccum chamber reduces pressure to a much lower level that that at top of the everest, with absolute no weight loss to what's inside it. Therefore, the influence of pressure on the downward acceleration is now disproved.

Vacuum chambers are not perfect. They don't remove everything, humans don't have the technology for that. It's a struggle to get rid of sand: try getting rid of molecules.

Citation given.
Think of it like this. For simplicity, let's say the surface area of the end of a tank is quarter that of a side. Model it as a cuboid, the principle is clearly shared. Let's also make it twice as long as it is wide. Width w (with units measured in air molecules, which we assume are equally spaced and so can be used as such), and the amount of air molecules hitting one end is n. Breadth cancels.

Umm, maths? The surface area of the end of a cuboid tank can't be a quarter of the are of the long side if the measurements of the cuboid tank is 1*1*2. The surface are of the end is half of the side.

So:
There are 4n air molecules against one side, and n against one end.

2n and 1n as of my correction.

For air molecules to collide with a side, they must be going in the right direction. In the absence of an external force, this is only possible if they are bouncing off another surface. Ignoring side-to-end and end-to-side collisions (which will balance out), this means there are 2wn molecules heading towards an end (those on the surface times the space in between): there are, however, 4wn heading towards each edge, because there are more heading in the correct direction to collide.
So long as the right relationship holds, that is that the surface area of a side is large enough compared to the width, the pressure we observe will exist.

What does w stand for? And let's just assume that the molecules bounce off 90° from a wall (so we ignore molecular level roughness, in whcih case the force accelerating the molecules will be exactly 90° off the walls).
You need to make yourself more clear.

Vacuum chambers are not perfect. They don't remove everything, humans don't have the technology for that. It's a struggle to get rid of sand: try getting rid of molecules.

Statement updated:

Vaccum chambers, even imperfect and not creating an absolute vacuum, reduces pressure to a much lower level that that at top of the everest, with absolute no weight loss to what's inside it. Therefore, the influence of pressure on the downward acceleration is now disproved.

If your theory is correct, then any object inside vacuum chambers would weight less than at the top of the everest, since the pressure inside the chamber would be weaker than at the top of everest.

Also, people at the space station would experience the same downward acceleration in space, since the pressure inside the ISS is the same at earth surface.

Since changing pressure won't affect the weight of anything, and since the downward acceleration changes according to the distance to the Earth surface even on pressurized cabins - like airplanes - it can be quite clear now that the downward acceleration is not influenced by air pressure in any way.

Umm, maths? The surface area of the end of a cuboid tank can't be a quarter of the are of the long side if the measurements of the cuboid tank is 1*1*2. The surface are of the end is half of the side.

It's not 1*1*2. As I said, breadth cancels.

What does w stand for?

Width. I explained this. Are you reading my posts or just rejecting them?

And let's just assume that the molecules bounce off 90° from a wall

I justified this assumption.

Vaccum chambers, even imperfect and not creating an absolute vacuum, reduces pressure to a much lower level that that at top of the everest, with absolute no weight loss to what's inside it. Therefore, the influence of pressure on the downward acceleration is now disproved.

Proof?

Also, people at the space station would experience the same downward acceleration in space, since the pressure inside the ISS is the same at earth surface.

No such thing.

Since changing pressure won't affect the weight of anything, and since the downward acceleration changes according to the distance to the Earth surface even on pressurized cabins - like airplanes - it can be quite clear now that the downward acceleration is not influenced by air pressure in any way.

Why do you need to make two posts addressed to the same person? You aren't adding anything new.

Quote

Vaccum chambers, even imperfect and not creating an absolute vacuum, reduces pressure to a much lower level that that at top of the everest, with absolute no weight loss to what's inside it. Therefore, the influence of pressure on the downward acceleration is now disproved.

Proof?

Quote

Also, people at the space station would experience the same downward acceleration in space, since the pressure inside the ISS is the same at earth surface.

No such thing.

Quote

Since changing pressure won't affect the weight of anything, and since the downward acceleration changes according to the distance to the Earth surface even on pressurized cabins - like airplanes - it can be quite clear now that the downward acceleration is not influenced by air pressure in any way.

Why do you need to make two posts addressed to the same person? You aren't adding anything new.

Basic proven science.

sorry TheBigOne but pressure it's definetly NOT the cause for the weight force. first of all, the resultant force of a pressure acting on a surface is directed perpendicularly to the surface, in an inwards direction, meaning that the vector with which we can represent the force has it's tip directed to the surfarce... hence if u hold up a sheet of paper the forces due to the pressure cancel eachother out since the surface area of the top and bottom of the sheet are equal so the modulus of the forces is the same but their versus it's opposite (again, the resultant force is directed to the surface and not away from it) so they cancel out.

moreover since u are not convicned by the vacuum let's try with the opposite. as u might know fighter pilots, when maneuvering, and precisingly while doing a positive g maneuver, experience a weight many times greater to their weight on the surface and this increasing weight is proportional to the acceleration of the maneuver they are doing, if your assumption is correct scuba diver decompressing in hyperbaric chambers will experience the same feeling of a greater weight.....which they don't.

anyway, pressure inside a vessel it's constant and does NOT vary with the position, on the contrary the stress inside material does vary if u're considering the walls or the ends of a tank, check this out
http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/courses.d/Structures.d/IAST.Lect03.d/IAST.Lect03.pdf

and the particles inside a tank do not flow from one end to the other, on a macroscopic scale the fluid inside a tank it's in static conditions(if the tank it's not heated or refrigerated or shaked), the pressure it's due to impact and movement of the particles on a microscopic scale.

Proof?

By all means.

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/dropping-objects-worlds-largest-vacuum-chamber/

That's quite unnecessary since you already agreed they work this morning:

Vacuum chambers are not perfect. They don't remove everything, humans don't have the technology for that. It's a struggle to get rid of sand: try getting rid of molecules.

Since the pressure inside vacuum chambers is much lower than the pressure at the everest - allowing a feather to fall as fast as a bownling ball, something impossible at the everest where people can breath - then the objects weight should be reduced.

They aren't. Therefore your theory is nonsense. Not even FET supporters would believe such gibberish 

No such thing.

Good thing I have evidence. You can find the ISS up in the sky - As can anyone here! http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/

It's up to you. Nonetheless the rebuttal still stands: Vacuum chambers do not alter an object weight.

Why do you need to make two posts addressed to the same person? You aren't adding anything new.

Nice dodge. But my argument still stands:

Since changing pressure won't affect the weight of anything, and since the downward acceleration changes according to the distance to the Earth surface even on pressurized cabins - like airplanes - it can be quite clear now that the downward acceleration is not influenced by air pressure in any way.

Therefore your theory is completely false.

It's not 1*1*2. As I said, breadth cancels.

1. How does "breadth cancels" exactly? You have to explain yourself. The breadth can't be zero, or the volume is zero.

2. You said that it was double as long as it was wide. Width = 1w, then length equals 2w so the measurements of this cuboid is 1*1*2.

Quote

And let's just assume that the molecules bounce off 90° from a wall

I justified this assumption.

Not really. You can't prove that they will cancel each other out, you just said they did. And It would be easier if we just assumed that molecules traveled back and forth along the same linear path. It was just a simplification from me.

For air molecules to collide with a side, they must be going in the right direction. In the absence of an external force, this is only possible if they are bouncing off another surface. Ignoring side-to-end and end-to-side collisions (which will balance out), this means there are 2wn molecules heading towards an end (those on the surface times the space in between): there are, however, 4wn heading towards each edge, because there are more heading in the correct direction to collide.
So long as the right relationship holds, that is that the surface area of a side is large enough compared to the width, the pressure we observe will exist.

So, a bit wrong. Towards each side there will be 2wn of molecules heading it's way. I don't know why you multiplied that by 2. So for every end and side, each of them will have 2wn molecules heading towards it (assuming molecules travel through each other without interacting). And then... you just stopped? You have to calculate pressure in some way to prove something about pressure, you know? You have to finish your equations. You have not proved anything yet.

Quote from: TheBigOne on November 08, 2015, 02:07:30 PM

Quote

Vaccum chambers, even imperfect and not creating an absolute vacuum, reduces pressure to a much lower level that that at top of the everest, with absolute no weight loss to what's inside it. Therefore, the influence of pressure on the downward acceleration is now disproved.

Proof?

Quote

Also, people at the space station would experience the same downward acceleration in space, since the pressure inside the ISS is the same at earth surface.

No such thing.

Quote

Since changing pressure won't affect the weight of anything, and since the downward acceleration changes according to the distance to the Earth surface even on pressurized cabins - like airplanes - it can be quite clear now that the downward acceleration is not influenced by air pressure in any way.

Why do you need to make two posts addressed to the same person? You aren't adding anything new.

Basic proven science.

So, you've got nothing?

sorry TheBigOne but pressure it's definetly NOT the cause for the weight force. first of all, the resultant force of a pressure acting on a surface is directed perpendicularly to the surface, in an inwards direction, meaning that the vector with which we can represent the force has it's tip directed to the surfarce... hence if u hold up a sheet of paper the forces due to the pressure cancel eachother out since the surface area of the top and bottom of the sheet are equal so the modulus of the forces is the same but their versus it's opposite (again, the resultant force is directed to the surface and not away from it) so they cancel out.

moreover since u are not convicned by the vacuum let's try with the opposite. as u might know fighter pilots, when maneuvering, and precisingly while doing a positive g maneuver, experience a weight many times greater to their weight on the surface and this increasing weight is proportional to the acceleration of the maneuver they are doing, if your assumption is correct scuba diver decompressing in hyperbaric chambers will experience the same feeling of a greater weight.....which they don't.

anyway, pressure inside a vessel it's constant and does NOT vary with the position, on the contrary the stress inside material does vary if u're considering the walls or the ends of a tank, check this out
http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/courses.d/Structures.d/IAST.Lect03.d/IAST.Lect03.pdf

and the particles inside a tank do not flow from one end to the other, on a macroscopic scale the fluid inside a tank it's in static conditions(if the tank it's not heated or refrigerated or shaked), the pressure it's due to impact and movement of the particles on a microscopic scale.

The force above a sheet is greater than the force below: the pressure comes from the compression of a far greater amount of air above, than below.
Air clearly moves.