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

  • 177 Replies
  • 37446 Views
*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2015, 11:40:17 PM »
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  ;D

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
I did not agree they work. I say the precise opposite. They are not perfect; they do not create a perfect vacuum. Until you can give an account of a test actually being run to measure the weight of an object in a vacuum chamber, you have not offered proof.
A light in the sky is not a space station.
What argument? You repeat the same mistakes in another post.

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2015, 11:45:56 PM »
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.

Do you just not understand what cancelling means? At no point did I say the measurements were 1*1*2, I have no idea what that is coming from. You have breadth, length and width. Width w, length 2w, but surface area will also depend on breadth: but if you run through the calculations with b involved, that's constant, and you just get a common term to both end results: so, it cancels because it makes no difference to the difference between the pressures.
Are you intententionally misunderstanding me because you can't refute the argument, or is math honestly just beyond you?

I did explain why they would cancel out. Assuming uniform dispersion, the force from the side to the end and the force from the end to the side will be the same: so, they do not cause any difference. It is a simplification, but it's a justified one.

Read the calculations. It is clear where everything comes from, if you use the example factors and lengths I gave you, rather than assuming a completely different model.
It is clear that more collisions will impart more pressure.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2015, 11:59:27 PM »
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.

Do you just not understand what cancelling means? At no point did I say the measurements were 1*1*2, I have no idea what that is coming from. You have breadth, length and width. Width w, length 2w, but surface area will also depend on breadth: but if you run through the calculations with b involved, that's constant, and you just get a common term to both end results: so, it cancels because it makes no difference to the difference between the pressures.
Are you intententionally misunderstanding me because you can't refute the argument, or is math honestly just beyond you?

I did explain why they would cancel out. Assuming uniform dispersion, the force from the side to the end and the force from the end to the side will be the same: so, they do not cause any difference. It is a simplification, but it's a justified one.

Read the calculations. It is clear where everything comes from, if you use the example factors and lengths I gave you, rather than assuming a completely different model.
It is clear that more collisions will impart more pressure.

I am pretty sure that is not called cancelling. It might however be a translation error between my native language (Swedish) and English. However, now that you MADE YOURSELF CLEAR it is easier to understand what you meant.

I have read the calculations. Nowhere do I see more collisions than anywhere else. Pressure is force/area, or in our case collisions per time/area. You haven't gotten there yet. Your calculations are unfinished.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2015, 12:07:15 AM by Master_Evar »
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2015, 12:14:23 AM »
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.

Do you just not understand what cancelling means? At no point did I say the measurements were 1*1*2, I have no idea what that is coming from. You have breadth, length and width. Width w, length 2w, but surface area will also depend on breadth: but if you run through the calculations with b involved, that's constant, and you just get a common term to both end results: so, it cancels because it makes no difference to the difference between the pressures.
Are you intententionally misunderstanding me because you can't refute the argument, or is math honestly just beyond you?

I did explain why they would cancel out. Assuming uniform dispersion, the force from the side to the end and the force from the end to the side will be the same: so, they do not cause any difference. It is a simplification, but it's a justified one.

Read the calculations. It is clear where everything comes from, if you use the example factors and lengths I gave you, rather than assuming a completely different model.
It is clear that more collisions will impart more pressure.

I am pretty sure that is not called cancelling. It might however be a translation error between my native language (Swedish) and English. However, now that you MADE YOURSELF CLEAR it is easier to understand what you meant.

I have read the calculations. Nowhere do I see more collisions than anywhere else. Pressure is force/area, or in our case collisions per time/area. You haven't gotten there yet. Your calculations are unfinished.

What I meant is clear to anyone who understands math. Did you even try to see what would happen if you included breadth, or did you just assume a needlessly specific case?

We see more collisions as a direct conclusion of the math: more air molecules are in contact with the end than the sides at any instant in time. If you want, we can shift the 2n even more. Four times as long as it is wide maybe? Get an even more striking result. Unless you are going to make the unjustified claim that the air is stationary (observably false), this translates immediately to more collisions. Change the dimenions (4n, 6n... length) and see how spectacular it becomes. More collisions per time per area.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2015, 01:16:51 AM »
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.

Do you just not understand what cancelling means? At no point did I say the measurements were 1*1*2, I have no idea what that is coming from. You have breadth, length and width. Width w, length 2w, but surface area will also depend on breadth: but if you run through the calculations with b involved, that's constant, and you just get a common term to both end results: so, it cancels because it makes no difference to the difference between the pressures.
Are you intententionally misunderstanding me because you can't refute the argument, or is math honestly just beyond you?

I did explain why they would cancel out. Assuming uniform dispersion, the force from the side to the end and the force from the end to the side will be the same: so, they do not cause any difference. It is a simplification, but it's a justified one.

Read the calculations. It is clear where everything comes from, if you use the example factors and lengths I gave you, rather than assuming a completely different model.
It is clear that more collisions will impart more pressure.

I am pretty sure that is not called cancelling. It might however be a translation error between my native language (Swedish) and English. However, now that you MADE YOURSELF CLEAR it is easier to understand what you meant.

I have read the calculations. Nowhere do I see more collisions than anywhere else. Pressure is force/area, or in our case collisions per time/area. You haven't gotten there yet. Your calculations are unfinished.

What I meant is clear to anyone who understands math. Did you even try to see what would happen if you included breadth, or did you just assume a needlessly specific case?

We see more collisions as a direct conclusion of the math: more air molecules are in contact with the end than the sides at any instant in time. If you want, we can shift the 2n even more. Four times as long as it is wide maybe? Get an even more striking result. Unless you are going to make the unjustified claim that the air is stationary (observably false), this translates immediately to more collisions. Change the dimenions (4n, 6n... length) and see how spectacular it becomes. More collisions per time per area.
How do we measure these collisions?

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2015, 01:27:37 AM »
What I meant is clear to anyone who understands math. Did you even try to see what would happen if you included breadth, or did you just assume a needlessly specific case?
I did know that breadth did not change the result. But I felt like including it anyways as w. So n=w^2. Just feels better. And it doesn't have to be clear to anyone. BUT I thought that you assumed something weird when you somehow calculated that each side would have 4wn molecules heading towards them, which was wrong.

We see more collisions as a direct conclusion of the math: more air molecules are in contact with the end than the sides at any instant in time.
So? the sides have bigger area. Pressure is value/area. We have to take the area of the sides and the area of the ends into account. Which is also why I'd like to include breadth, it makes it all cleaner.

If you want, we can shift the 2n even more. Four times as long as it is wide maybe? Get an even more striking result.
How does it change anything? Each side and end will have 4wn molecules heading towards them now. So what? Still doesn't show a difference in pressure.

Unless you are going to make the unjustified claim that the air is stationary (observably false),
Citation needed. Never claimed or stated such a thing.

this translates immediately to more collisions.
Relative velocity is required for collisions to happen, so yeah, of course. Tell me something I didn't know already.

Change the dimenions (4n, 6n... length) and see how spectacular it becomes. More collisions per time per area.
So what? STILL DOESN'T SHOW A DIFFERENCE IN PRESSURE.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2015, 03:14:49 AM »
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.

Do you just not understand what cancelling means? At no point did I say the measurements were 1*1*2, I have no idea what that is coming from. You have breadth, length and width. Width w, length 2w, but surface area will also depend on breadth: but if you run through the calculations with b involved, that's constant, and you just get a common term to both end results: so, it cancels because it makes no difference to the difference between the pressures.
Are you intententionally misunderstanding me because you can't refute the argument, or is math honestly just beyond you?

I did explain why they would cancel out. Assuming uniform dispersion, the force from the side to the end and the force from the end to the side will be the same: so, they do not cause any difference. It is a simplification, but it's a justified one.

Read the calculations. It is clear where everything comes from, if you use the example factors and lengths I gave you, rather than assuming a completely different model.
It is clear that more collisions will impart more pressure.

I am pretty sure that is not called cancelling. It might however be a translation error between my native language (Swedish) and English. However, now that you MADE YOURSELF CLEAR it is easier to understand what you meant.

I have read the calculations. Nowhere do I see more collisions than anywhere else. Pressure is force/area, or in our case collisions per time/area. You haven't gotten there yet. Your calculations are unfinished.

What I meant is clear to anyone who understands math. Did you even try to see what would happen if you included breadth, or did you just assume a needlessly specific case?

We see more collisions as a direct conclusion of the math: more air molecules are in contact with the end than the sides at any instant in time. If you want, we can shift the 2n even more. Four times as long as it is wide maybe? Get an even more striking result. Unless you are going to make the unjustified claim that the air is stationary (observably false), this translates immediately to more collisions. Change the dimenions (4n, 6n... length) and see how spectacular it becomes. More collisions per time per area.
How do we measure these collisions?
What?

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2015, 03:18:07 AM »
What I meant is clear to anyone who understands math. Did you even try to see what would happen if you included breadth, or did you just assume a needlessly specific case?
I did know that breadth did not change the result. But I felt like including it anyways as w. So n=w^2. Just feels better. And it doesn't have to be clear to anyone. BUT I thought that you assumed something weird when you somehow calculated that each side would have 4wn molecules heading towards them, which was wrong.

We see more collisions as a direct conclusion of the math: more air molecules are in contact with the end than the sides at any instant in time.
So? the sides have bigger area. Pressure is value/area. We have to take the area of the sides and the area of the ends into account. Which is also why I'd like to include breadth, it makes it all cleaner.

If you want, we can shift the 2n even more. Four times as long as it is wide maybe? Get an even more striking result.
How does it change anything? Each side and end will have 4wn molecules heading towards them now. So what? Still doesn't show a difference in pressure.

Unless you are going to make the unjustified claim that the air is stationary (observably false),
Citation needed. Never claimed or stated such a thing.

this translates immediately to more collisions.
Relative velocity is required for collisions to happen, so yeah, of course. Tell me something I didn't know already.

Change the dimenions (4n, 6n... length) and see how spectacular it becomes. More collisions per time per area.
So what? STILL DOESN'T SHOW A DIFFERENCE IN PRESSURE.
Breadth doesn't alter the results. You can include a b if you want, for generality.
You seem to be ignoring the necessary conclusions of the results. "Pressure is force/area, or in our case collisions per time/area." This is your own admission. We have enough to alter the collisions however much we want, (4n, 6n...) and we fix the relative areas of the ends and side right at the start: so we have enough to gauge collisions. The calculations are trivial, I assumed this would be clear. Are you just stalling?

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2015, 03:34:43 AM »
What I meant is clear to anyone who understands math. Did you even try to see what would happen if you included breadth, or did you just assume a needlessly specific case?
I did know that breadth did not change the result. But I felt like including it anyways as w. So n=w^2. Just feels better. And it doesn't have to be clear to anyone. BUT I thought that you assumed something weird when you somehow calculated that each side would have 4wn molecules heading towards them, which was wrong.

We see more collisions as a direct conclusion of the math: more air molecules are in contact with the end than the sides at any instant in time.
So? the sides have bigger area. Pressure is value/area. We have to take the area of the sides and the area of the ends into account. Which is also why I'd like to include breadth, it makes it all cleaner.

If you want, we can shift the 2n even more. Four times as long as it is wide maybe? Get an even more striking result.
How does it change anything? Each side and end will have 4wn molecules heading towards them now. So what? Still doesn't show a difference in pressure.

Unless you are going to make the unjustified claim that the air is stationary (observably false),
Citation needed. Never claimed or stated such a thing.

this translates immediately to more collisions.
Relative velocity is required for collisions to happen, so yeah, of course. Tell me something I didn't know already.

Change the dimenions (4n, 6n... length) and see how spectacular it becomes. More collisions per time per area.
So what? STILL DOESN'T SHOW A DIFFERENCE IN PRESSURE.
Breadth doesn't alter the results. You can include a b if you want, for generality.
You seem to be ignoring the necessary conclusions of the results. "Pressure is force/area, or in our case collisions per time/area." This is your own admission. We have enough to alter the collisions however much we want, (4n, 6n...) and we fix the relative areas of the ends and side right at the start: so we have enough to gauge collisions. The calculations are trivial, I assumed this would be clear. Are you just stalling?

But you have still not shown HOW there is a difference in pressure between the sides and the ends. All of them have wbl (w=width, b=breadth, l=length) molecules travel towards them, so the volume of the container. And then what? You have to finish your calculations before we can draw any such conclusions from them.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2015, 08:36:31 AM »
Denpressure doesn't work.

Air pressure pushes nearly equally on all sides of an object, yet only moves it one direction?  Sceptimatic claims 'stacked air' above the object or pressure buildup from being lifted, yet it only works in one direction?

Sceptimatic claims it's the air molecules above other air molecules that push downward, but what causes the topmost air molecule to push downward?  This means there is nothing pushing down on the one below it, and so that one won't push on the one below it either, so on and so on all the way to the ground.

A block of lead is heavier than an equally sized block of aluminum.  Sceptimatic claims the aluminum is lighter because the air pressure passes through it more easily than the lead.  Simply measuring how fast air pressure returns to a container with a cap made of aluminum vs one made of lead will either prove or disprove this quite easily.

If a cylinder has higher pressure inside at the ends vs the sides (as thebigone claims) then inserting a gauge at these two locations and taking measurements would be rather easy.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2015, 09:07:56 AM »
Denpressure doesn't work.
Denpressure  works perfectly and perfectly fits what we see and feel.

Air pressure pushes nearly equally on all sides of an object, yet only moves it one direction?
What do you mean by moves in one direction?


  Sceptimatic claims 'stacked air' above the object or pressure buildup from being lifted, yet it only works in one direction?
Explain what you're talking about.

Sceptimatic claims it's the air molecules above other air molecules that push downward, but what causes the topmost air molecule to push downward?
No I didn't. I said it's all a push on push or push against resistance top push, both ways.
The top most molecules make up the ice dome. They are fully expanded and are dormant, so they freeze because they do no pushing until they encounter more pressure pushing against them. This creates what we would know as a superfluid, created under and pushing UP into that ice.
Call it natures window cleaner against the real vacuum of true blackness that is not space that we know of.


  This means there is nothing pushing down on the one below it, and so that one won't push on the one below it either, so on and so on all the way to the ground.
As I explained above. The push is from the bottom to the top due to agitation due to compression release.
A block of lead is heavier than an equally sized block of aluminum.  Sceptimatic claims the aluminum is lighter because the air pressure passes through it more easily than the lead.
Air pressure is part of it. It's like a dense sponge against a porous sponge. The dense one weighs heavier on a man made scale because it displaces more atmospheric pressure acting upon it than a porous one which displaces much less and so can't repel the atmospheric pressure as much.

To make it thought simple, Imagine hitting a tennis ball with a new raquet. You find you repel that ball easily but that ball puts pressure on that raquet strings because those strings are small enough to repel the ball.
Now use a raquet with many strings that are snapped, with gaps nearly the size of the ball. The result is a trapped ball when hit or the ball squeezes through, meaning you struggle to repel the ball and you don't feel that pressure as much.
Take some time to think about what I'm saying.


 
Simply measuring how fast air pressure returns to a container with a cap made of aluminum vs one made of lead will either prove or disprove this quite easily.
This is no good. You're not really getting the point.

If a cylinder has higher pressure inside at the ends vs the sides (as thebigone claims) then inserting a gauge at these two locations and taking measurements would be rather easy.
Tell me something. If you compress a spring into a tube. Let's use a truck suspension spring under full load. Where is the major strength from that spring coming from if you were to take the loads off it and allow it to decompress?

Take some time to think about this and you might learn something and maybe stop hanging onto something  (gravity) that you clearly know is bullshit but are scared to admit.

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2015, 11:11:19 AM »
I said it's all a push on push or push against resistance top push, both ways.
Well, that's clear.  ::)

Quote
The top most molecules make up the ice dome. They are fully expanded and are dormant, so they freeze because they do no pushing until they encounter more pressure pushing against them.
What?

Quote
This creates what we would know as a superfluid, created under and pushing UP into that ice.
Which "we" are you referring to?

Quote
Call it natures window cleaner against the real vacuum of true blackness that is not space that we know of.
What?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

luckyfred

  • 524
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2015, 11:58:05 AM »
Sceptimatic, i think u've gone a little too far in trying to prove air pressure it's the cause for weight force, your last post seems a joke yet somehow it takes away all the fun in arguing with u. Next time if u wanna answer at least try to come up with something that makes sense.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2015, 12:04:51 PM »
Sceptimatic, i think u've gone a little too far in trying to prove air pressure it's the cause for weight force, your last post seems a joke yet somehow it takes away all the fun in arguing with u. Next time if u wanna answer at least try to come up with something that makes sense.
It'll never  make sense to the unconditional indoctrinated, which is fine by me because my aim is to make people think, who can think for themselves without interference from people like you, who's goal is to make sure they don't deviate from the accepted model.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2015, 12:28:04 PM »
Sceptimatic, i think u've gone a little too far in trying to prove air pressure it's the cause for weight force, your last post seems a joke yet somehow it takes away all the fun in arguing with u. Next time if u wanna answer at least try to come up with something that makes sense.
It'll never  make sense to the unconditional indoctrinated, which is fine by me because my aim is to make people think, who can think for themselves without interference from people like you, who's goal is to make sure they don't deviate from the accepted model.
Did you visit your local nuclear power station?

?

luckyfred

  • 524
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2015, 12:55:58 PM »
before someone lets it's mind think freely one should have a solid bases. it's too convient to learn only the physics that fit with your beliefs.

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2015, 12:57:38 PM »
What I meant is clear to anyone who understands math. Did you even try to see what would happen if you included breadth, or did you just assume a needlessly specific case?
I did know that breadth did not change the result. But I felt like including it anyways as w. So n=w^2. Just feels better. And it doesn't have to be clear to anyone. BUT I thought that you assumed something weird when you somehow calculated that each side would have 4wn molecules heading towards them, which was wrong.

We see more collisions as a direct conclusion of the math: more air molecules are in contact with the end than the sides at any instant in time.
So? the sides have bigger area. Pressure is value/area. We have to take the area of the sides and the area of the ends into account. Which is also why I'd like to include breadth, it makes it all cleaner.

If you want, we can shift the 2n even more. Four times as long as it is wide maybe? Get an even more striking result.
How does it change anything? Each side and end will have 4wn molecules heading towards them now. So what? Still doesn't show a difference in pressure.

Unless you are going to make the unjustified claim that the air is stationary (observably false),
Citation needed. Never claimed or stated such a thing.

this translates immediately to more collisions.
Relative velocity is required for collisions to happen, so yeah, of course. Tell me something I didn't know already.

Change the dimenions (4n, 6n... length) and see how spectacular it becomes. More collisions per time per area.
So what? STILL DOESN'T SHOW A DIFFERENCE IN PRESSURE.
Breadth doesn't alter the results. You can include a b if you want, for generality.
You seem to be ignoring the necessary conclusions of the results. "Pressure is force/area, or in our case collisions per time/area." This is your own admission. We have enough to alter the collisions however much we want, (4n, 6n...) and we fix the relative areas of the ends and side right at the start: so we have enough to gauge collisions. The calculations are trivial, I assumed this would be clear. Are you just stalling?

But you have still not shown HOW there is a difference in pressure between the sides and the ends. All of them have wbl (w=width, b=breadth, l=length) molecules travel towards them, so the volume of the container. And then what? You have to finish your calculations before we can draw any such conclusions from them.
I have explained how: all molecules cannot be going in all directions at all times, I have no idea where your wbl statement comes from.
I have finished my calculations. Stop stalling. I have shown that more molecules will collide with the sides, and you have the relative surface areas to observe that this causes more pressure.

?

luckyfred

  • 524
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2015, 03:16:24 PM »
pressure acts equally in all directions, in a cylindrical container the stresses does vary if u're considering the sides or the ends but the pressure is the same in each point of the container and it acts always perpendicularly to the surface.

I suggest TheBigOne to take a look at these:
paragraph 3 of
http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/FluidsLevel1/Unit02/T1.html

and
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-016-hydrodynamics-13-012-fall-2005/readings/2005reading2.pdf


?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2015, 06:37:10 PM »
I have an interesting question about denpressure. If it is air pressure please explain the discovery of Neptune.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune)
Quote
The planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed.
Quote
By 1847 the planet Uranus had completed nearly one full orbit since its discovery by William Herschel in 1781, and astronomers had detected a series of irregularities in its path that could not be entirely explained by Newton's law of gravitation. These irregularities could, however, be resolved if the gravity of a farther, unknown planet were disturbing its path around the Sun. In 1845 astronomers Urbain Le Verrier in Paris and John Couch Adams in Cambridge separately began calculations to determine the nature and position of such a planet.

Is there denpressure in space that moves planets around?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2015, 07:41:35 PM »
It should be quite clear now that sceptimatic and big one are trolls  ;D

Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2015, 08:23:42 PM »
Next time if u wanna answer at least try to come up with something that makes sense.
Hey, as long as you keep trolling and he keeps knocking you down, I congratulate you!   Keep up the good work!! 

I am learning more and more!!! 

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2015, 09:46:17 PM »
I have explained how: all molecules cannot be going in all directions at all times, I have no idea where your wbl statement comes from.
I have finished my calculations. Stop stalling. I have shown that more molecules will collide with the sides, and you have the relative surface areas to observe that this causes more pressure.

wbl = 2wn, since n = wb and 2n = l. It's the same statement YOU made. Also, WHERE IS THE CALCULATION THAT SHOWS THAT MORE A DEFINED AREA AT THE SIDES WILL HAVE MORE COLLISIONS PER TIME UNIT THAN ONE AT THE ENDS? Sorry, but your calculations are NOT finished. I COULD just finish them for you, if you wanted. You might not like the answer though, because it's probably gonna be the exact same answer as earlier. And that might be why you don't want to finish your calculations. No matter how you look at it, if you can't give an answer measured in terms of pressure then you have not finished your calculations. You have shown that equally many molecules are headed towards each side and end, but no more have you shown.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2015, 12:58:15 AM »
pressure acts equally in all directions, in a cylindrical container the stresses does vary if u're considering the sides or the ends but the pressure is the same in each point of the container and it acts always perpendicularly to the surface.
Either contradicting yourself or ignoring math, which is it?
I know it acts perpendicularly, this is what my calculations rely on.

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2015, 12:59:05 AM »
Is there denpressure in space that moves planets around?
Space is a fluid, they're governed by equations of current.

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2015, 01:04:05 AM »
I have explained how: all molecules cannot be going in all directions at all times, I have no idea where your wbl statement comes from.
I have finished my calculations. Stop stalling. I have shown that more molecules will collide with the sides, and you have the relative surface areas to observe that this causes more pressure.

wbl = 2wn, since n = wb and 2n = l. It's the same statement YOU made. Also, WHERE IS THE CALCULATION THAT SHOWS THAT MORE A DEFINED AREA AT THE SIDES WILL HAVE MORE COLLISIONS PER TIME UNIT THAN ONE AT THE ENDS? Sorry, but your calculations are NOT finished. I COULD just finish them for you, if you wanted. You might not like the answer though, because it's probably gonna be the exact same answer as earlier. And that might be why you don't want to finish your calculations. No matter how you look at it, if you can't give an answer measured in terms of pressure then you have not finished your calculations. You have shown that equally many molecules are headed towards each side and end, but no more have you shown.
Well given your calculations earlier completely ignored my model, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. You do know that changing one number just because the result makes you uncomfortable doesn't give you an accurate result, right?
I have no idea where you're getting n=wb from. Are you understanding any of this?

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2015, 01:11:03 AM »
I have explained how: all molecules cannot be going in all directions at all times, I have no idea where your wbl statement comes from.
I have finished my calculations. Stop stalling. I have shown that more molecules will collide with the sides, and you have the relative surface areas to observe that this causes more pressure.

wbl = 2wn, since n = wb and 2n = l. It's the same statement YOU made. Also, WHERE IS THE CALCULATION THAT SHOWS THAT MORE A DEFINED AREA AT THE SIDES WILL HAVE MORE COLLISIONS PER TIME UNIT THAN ONE AT THE ENDS? Sorry, but your calculations are NOT finished. I COULD just finish them for you, if you wanted. You might not like the answer though, because it's probably gonna be the exact same answer as earlier. And that might be why you don't want to finish your calculations. No matter how you look at it, if you can't give an answer measured in terms of pressure then you have not finished your calculations. You have shown that equally many molecules are headed towards each side and end, but no more have you shown.
Well given your calculations earlier completely ignored my model, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. You do know that changing one number just because the result makes you uncomfortable doesn't give you an accurate result, right?
I have no idea where you're getting n=wb from. Are you understanding any of this?

You said that n was the total amount of air molecules that is in contact with one end. So it's the area of one end measured in molecules. And you said that w was width, and is also measured in molecules, so I assume that b and l are also measured in molecules. And so, the area of an end is obviously wb measured in molecules, which equals to n. And can you PLEASE stop evading and just finish your calculations?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2015, 01:45:36 AM »
Also, I just realized, if denpressure and pressure works the way TheBigOne describes it, we'd get blasted off into space. If pressure increases between two surfaces with decreased distance, then the difference in distance between our feet and the ground and the distance between our head/shoulders and the nothing above us (so infinite distance, or if there is a dome, a few thousand miles) should create an extreme difference in pressure on our feet and our head/shoulders and make us fly up at great speeds. This does not happen.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

luckyfred

  • 524
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2015, 02:52:48 AM »
pressure acts equally in all directions, in a cylindrical container the stresses does vary if u're considering the sides or the ends but the pressure is the same in each point of the container and it acts always perpendicularly to the surface.
Either contradicting yourself or ignoring math, which is it?
I know it acts perpendicularly, this is what my calculations rely on.

This is what i meant when i said that someone should have solid basis before trying to come up with a new theory. Pressure acting on a surface produces a force which causes a state of stress inside the material. Taking a scuba tank as example, cylindrical sides and semispherical ends, the pressure inside it it's constant but due to the different geometry the stresses inside the material have a complete different distribution, check this out.

http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/courses.d/Structures.d/IAST.Lect03.d/IAST.Lect03.pdf

If it's too engineering tell me and I'll be glad to explain.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 03:13:34 AM by luckyfred »

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2015, 03:49:29 AM »
It should be quite clear now that sceptimatic and big one are trolls  ;D
I think TheBigOne is testing his debate skills by choosing some obvious bullshit and trying to argue for it.

Scepti is....well scepti.  He plays his games.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #59 on: November 10, 2015, 08:10:23 AM »
Is there denpressure in space that moves planets around?
Space is a fluid, they're governed by equations of current.
So denpressure does not apply to where the planets are (dome)? What about that ice dome thing? Are the heavenlies beyond the ice dome? are there 2+ domes? Please explain and describe.

The location of Neptune was predicted by the gravity formula. How does denpressure or fluid and equations of current predict it based on motions of Uranus? I am not clear on the applications to astronomy (motion of heavenly bodies).
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."