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

  • 177 Replies
  • 37467 Views
*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #90 on: November 11, 2015, 09:10:32 AM »
Placing a scale in a near vacuum will show whether denpressure is real or not and I just so happen to have done that.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available


No denpressure to be found.

Humans cannot successfully construct good vacuums. I explained this.
It's still less than half the pressure as atmosphere, why isn't there half the gravity?
Why should the change be linear? I explained this.
By the mechanism for how it would work. If there is less air pushing down then there would be less force. Why would depressure be immune to physics?
That does not explain why the change would be linear.

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #91 on: November 11, 2015, 09:11:28 AM »
Placing a scale in a near vacuum will show whether denpressure is real or not and I just so happen to have done that.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

No denpressure to be found.

Humans cannot successfully construct good vacuums. I explained this.
It's still less than half the pressure as atmosphere, why isn't there half the gravity?
Why should the change be linear? I explained this.

weight force is.... well a force, if it's caused by pressure the force should be linear with the pressure sincrìe F=Ap, where A is the surface area of the object, since the only variable is pressure, changing pressure the force should vary accordingly... doule pressure=double force, half pressure=half force
Only if you assume that formula is relevant.

?

luckyfred

  • 524
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #92 on: November 11, 2015, 09:43:16 AM »
Placing a scale in a near vacuum will show whether denpressure is real or not and I just so happen to have done that.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

No denpressure to be found.

Humans cannot successfully construct good vacuums. I explained this.
It's still less than half the pressure as atmosphere, why isn't there half the gravity?
Why should the change be linear? I explained this.

weight force is.... well a force, if it's caused by pressure the force should be linear with the pressure sincrìe F=Ap, where A is the surface area of the object, since the only variable is pressure, changing pressure the force should vary accordingly... doule pressure=double force, half pressure=half force
Only if you assume that formula is relevant.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.....that's all u can do? Really didn't u come up with a better answer? Just saying, cause if u don't consider that formula basically we won't have steam engine, internal combustion engine, pressure vessel, airplane, turbine, compressors, pumps, pressure pipes and i can go on for ages listing the things we wouldn't be able to make. Every time we desing something which involves pressure we assume that relation exist.

Please tell me how u're not trolling...

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #93 on: November 11, 2015, 10:35:58 AM »
Ratios don't have a dimension, and I never claimed we would fall up when close to the ground. I don't know where you're getting any of this from.
But you measured in dimension. And ratios can be dimensions. The ratio between a box with volume 2v and a box with volume 1v is 2:1. For it to be a ratio, you have to have no units. However, since your "ratio" calculation ended with a unit it is not a ratio calculation. A ratio is x/y, where x and y share a common unit. wn and w are not the same units.

Also, you claimed that less distance between two surfaces means greater pressure between them. Since the distance is smaller between our feet and the ground than between our head and whatever is above us, the pressure is greater under our feet according to your model and we would fall up. You have contradicted yourself.
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!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #94 on: November 11, 2015, 11:09:26 AM »
Placing a scale in a near vacuum will show whether denpressure is real or not and I just so happen to have done that.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available


No denpressure to be found.

Humans cannot successfully construct good vacuums. I explained this.
It's still less than half the pressure as atmosphere, why isn't there half the gravity?
Why should the change be linear? I explained this.
By the mechanism for how it would work. If there is less air pushing down then there would be less force. Why would depressure be immune to physics?
That does not explain why the change would be linear.
You are the only person that used the word "linear". I just want to know how a weight can be something, then remove over 50% of the air pressure on it, and have the weight remain the same.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

flodis

  • 1
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #95 on: November 11, 2015, 11:19:29 AM »
So pressurized gas of the type we can breath and the stuff birds fly in keeps us grounded?

So a bird that folds the wings in mid air will be directed downwards. No matter how you turn the bird - legs up or down - the pressure knows where the bird belongs when it is not moving the wings? If there is slightly more pressure on the birds upside that would work but since there is no gravity in flat earth all forces has to be made by air. With the upside down duck a pressure difference would then be detectable as a downward wind close to the duck. So if you place a upside down duck on a stick you will feel the wind since there is more air pressure above the duck than under. As some people have noticed if there is a difference in air pressure the wind tends to move in that direction.

In the gravity world you can pile air vertically and have a variation in pressure but that is due to stapling. In a steady state world heating air will make it expand (collide more frequently with surroundings and use more room) using more room with the same amount of molecules makes the hot air less dense and it will float upwards and so on.

I understand nothing of this is true on flat earth, just unproven theories. But that is a problem with everything. Ju have to test your theories or make general observations on gases and stuff to be certain enough to even build theories and be able to calculate and simulate things without actually making physical experiments for everything.

Having robust theories does not mean you are blind to new possibilities, but the new possibilities will hav to qualify and be tested for validity before put in the toolbox.

The same if you have a steel object of one kilo and carve out half of the mass and weld the hole. The air pressure knows the stuff inside the metal object is missing and makes less force on the object?

Why do flat earth have a problem with gravity but have no problems with completely unknown things like the edge of the flat world and the plate thickness and how all continents are lit up by the sun and sometimes in shade or darkness. One would suspect it is difficult to have complete darkness at one spot and horribly strong sunlight at the same time on a completely flat surface. That kind of lighting experiment can easily be tested. How come some people have full darkness and some sunshine but the ones in darkness are unable to see the lamp? Even if the lamp is flat is it sending out light only perpendicularly to the surface and can not be seen from an angle.

How come it appears the light source does not go off when on the sky. It allways hides behind the horizon before being turned off.

Do you have a theory for the light too?

Just apply a magic force to act on all objects in a specified direction and problem is solved.

As long as you supply alternative theories involving air pressure you get no where. It is so simple to experiment with air you have no chance explaining the downward force or motion that seems so common to all objects except ballons and smoke and hot air that travels upwards.

Why do you reject ours of studies made by people before you that was both qurious and smart enough to draw conclusions and even communicate the findings for others to prove right or wrong.

Flat earth causes a lot of problems that where already figured out. Now that you messed it upp you better come up with a model that can be accepted by a wide public.

 ???

*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #96 on: November 11, 2015, 12:02:30 PM »

That does not explain why the change would be linear.

You never explained why denpressure causes the downward acceleration and not the opposite. Can you show proof that one thing is the cause, and the other, the consequence?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #97 on: November 11, 2015, 01:30:17 PM »

What dome are you talking about? I have never mentioned a dome, much less one of ice.
Your thread is called "Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth".  Denpressure is scepti's "model" and at it's heart is a giant ice dome.  Without the ice dome you don't have denpressure.  Maybe you should have a cursory look at the model you are championing  ::)

Quote
The gravity formula functions as a means of measuring ripples. You claim these ripples are in space, I take the logical step of saying they are in fluidic space.
This doesn't really mean anything.

So, given you are now not doing Denpressure, what stops the atmosphere from flying off into space?

I learnt of the denpressure theory from a concave Earther, I've had little experience with Sceptimatic.
There is no dome. There is fluidic space, which we can observe, extending to the threshold of the atmosphere, so that the vibrations of the Sun's heat and waves of light reach us. The fluid is what compresses air against the Earth.
So how will this let us find Neptune (mathematically) by watching Uranus' movement? How would it let us find Pluto based on Uranus' and Neptune's movement?
Quote
The existence of an unknown ninth planet was first proposed by Percival Lowell, who theorized that wobbles in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune were caused by the gravitational pull of an unknown planetary body. Lowell calculated the approximate location of the hypothesized ninth planet and searched for more than a decade without success. However, in 1929, using the calculations of Powell and W.H. Pickering as a guide, the search for Pluto was resumed at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona. On February 18, 1930, Tombaugh discovered the tiny, distant planet by use of a new astronomic technique of photographic plates combined with a blink microscope. His finding was confirmed by several other astronomers, and on March 13, 1930–the anniversary of Lowell’s birth and of William Hershel’s discovery of Uranus–the discovery of Pluto was publicly announced.(http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pluto-discovered)
We observe wobbles in stars over years and can determine other masses rotating around them. How do we do this with denpressure (air pressure - sceptimatic; or fluidic space - BigOne)?
Motion through fluid, ripples. I explained this.
Yes, ON fluids there are ripples/waves (like stones dropped in a pond). Tides ebb - come and go. These are very similar to sine waves/sinc waves. IN fluids are there ripples/waves (i.e. under water)? I didn't think so because seismic S waves do not travel through liquids. Neptune and Pluto did not move in ripples/waves. They did not pull Uranus and Neptune in ripples/waves. There was a constant pull that behaved according to gravitational formulas based on distance (squared).
You're wrong.
Well that explains denpressure. I will remember this type of answer when other FEers ask me arguments. Thank you.
“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."

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #98 on: November 12, 2015, 10:47:44 AM »
Ratios don't have a dimension, and I never claimed we would fall up when close to the ground. I don't know where you're getting any of this from.
But you measured in dimension. And ratios can be dimensions. The ratio between a box with volume 2v and a box with volume 1v is 2:1. For it to be a ratio, you have to have no units. However, since your "ratio" calculation ended with a unit it is not a ratio calculation. A ratio is x/y, where x and y share a common unit. wn and w are not the same units.

Also, you claimed that less distance between two surfaces means greater pressure between them. Since the distance is smaller between our feet and the ground than between our head and whatever is above us, the pressure is greater under our feet according to your model and we would fall up. You have contradicted yourself.
That is why you're dividing the ratio between surface areas, making it dimensionless. I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't contradicted myself, you're rambling.

*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #99 on: November 12, 2015, 11:24:52 AM »
Ratios don't have a dimension, and I never claimed we would fall up when close to the ground. I don't know where you're getting any of this from.
But you measured in dimension. And ratios can be dimensions. The ratio between a box with volume 2v and a box with volume 1v is 2:1. For it to be a ratio, you have to have no units. However, since your "ratio" calculation ended with a unit it is not a ratio calculation. A ratio is x/y, where x and y share a common unit. wn and w are not the same units.

Also, you claimed that less distance between two surfaces means greater pressure between them. Since the distance is smaller between our feet and the ground than between our head and whatever is above us, the pressure is greater under our feet according to your model and we would fall up. You have contradicted yourself.
That is why you're dividing the ratio between surface areas, making it dimensionless. I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't contradicted myself, you're rambling.

You're wrong.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #100 on: November 12, 2015, 02:47:59 PM »
Thebigone ran away from all the hard arguments.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #101 on: November 12, 2015, 04:24:24 PM »
Ratios don't have a dimension, and I never claimed we would fall up when close to the ground. I don't know where you're getting any of this from.
But you measured in dimension. And ratios can be dimensions. The ratio between a box with volume 2v and a box with volume 1v is 2:1. For it to be a ratio, you have to have no units. However, since your "ratio" calculation ended with a unit it is not a ratio calculation. A ratio is x/y, where x and y share a common unit. wn and w are not the same units.

Also, you claimed that less distance between two surfaces means greater pressure between them. Since the distance is smaller between our feet and the ground than between our head and whatever is above us, the pressure is greater under our feet according to your model and we would fall up. You have contradicted yourself.
That is why you're dividing the ratio between surface areas, making it dimensionless. I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't contradicted myself, you're rambling.

You're wrong.

That is low content posting and is against the rules.  Consider this a warning. 

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #102 on: November 12, 2015, 10:04:13 PM »
That is why you're dividing the ratio between surface areas, making it dimensionless.
Then you just end up with 1 every time. Did you even do the math to check for yourself first?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't contradicted myself, you're rambling.
I'm sorry, but is there something with these sentences:
Quote
Also, you claimed that less distance between two surfaces means greater pressure between them. Since the distance is smaller between our feet and the ground than between our head and whatever is above us, the pressure is greater under our feet according to your model and we would fall up. You have contradicted yourself.
you don't understand then?
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 #103 on: November 13, 2015, 01:13:30 AM »
Thebigone ran away from all the hard arguments.


No, you just ignored the fact that every single one of them has been dealt with. Repeating an argument until someone is bored with you isn't a victory.

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #104 on: November 13, 2015, 01:16:38 AM »
That is why you're dividing the ratio between surface areas, making it dimensionless.
Then you just end up with 1 every time. Did you even do the math to check for yourself first?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't contradicted myself, you're rambling.
I'm sorry, but is there something with these sentences:
Quote
Also, you claimed that less distance between two surfaces means greater pressure between them. Since the distance is smaller between our feet and the ground than between our head and whatever is above us, the pressure is greater under our feet according to your model and we would fall up. You have contradicted yourself.
you don't understand then?
Did you do the math? I'm not the one who refused to provide math this time.
I'm not even sure how you're trying to compare a closed cylinder to the gap between our feet and the ground. There's a whole other direction available, do you understand my argument at all? Besides, when we walk, there is initially no gap. Air has to rush in into it: its motion is horizontal. And yet again, the distance isn't what matters, it's the ratio. As I said, you're rambling.

*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #105 on: November 13, 2015, 01:45:23 AM »
Ratios don't have a dimension, and I never claimed we would fall up when close to the ground. I don't know where you're getting any of this from.
But you measured in dimension. And ratios can be dimensions. The ratio between a box with volume 2v and a box with volume 1v is 2:1. For it to be a ratio, you have to have no units. However, since your "ratio" calculation ended with a unit it is not a ratio calculation. A ratio is x/y, where x and y share a common unit. wn and w are not the same units.

Also, you claimed that less distance between two surfaces means greater pressure between them. Since the distance is smaller between our feet and the ground than between our head and whatever is above us, the pressure is greater under our feet according to your model and we would fall up. You have contradicted yourself.
That is why you're dividing the ratio between surface areas, making it dimensionless. I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't contradicted myself, you're rambling.

You're wrong.

That is low content posting and is against the rules.  Consider this a warning.


Oh, is that so?  ;D

You're wrong.

Neither posted low-content. "You're wrong" is not an example of low content posting, according to the rules, and since we're adding something to the conversation - we're declaring the quoted person to be wrong - it does not qualifies as "low content".

"Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly. "Low-content posting" refers to short posts like "lol" or "yeah" or "that's dumb." Before you make a post in here, ask yourself, "am I really adding anything to the conversation?" If the answer is "no", you probably shouldn't make the post."

Source: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11213.0#.VkWvNr872bI

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #106 on: November 13, 2015, 01:50:51 AM »
Ratios don't have a dimension, and I never claimed we would fall up when close to the ground. I don't know where you're getting any of this from.
But you measured in dimension. And ratios can be dimensions. The ratio between a box with volume 2v and a box with volume 1v is 2:1. For it to be a ratio, you have to have no units. However, since your "ratio" calculation ended with a unit it is not a ratio calculation. A ratio is x/y, where x and y share a common unit. wn and w are not the same units.

Also, you claimed that less distance between two surfaces means greater pressure between them. Since the distance is smaller between our feet and the ground than between our head and whatever is above us, the pressure is greater under our feet according to your model and we would fall up. You have contradicted yourself.
That is why you're dividing the ratio between surface areas, making it dimensionless. I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't contradicted myself, you're rambling.

You're wrong.

That is low content posting and is against the rules.  Consider this a warning.


Oh, is that so?  ;D

You're wrong.

Neither posted low-content. "You're wrong" is not an example of low content posting, according to the rules, and since we're adding something to the conversation - we're declaring the quoted person to be wrong - it does not qualifies as "low content".

"Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly. "Low-content posting" refers to short posts like "lol" or "yeah" or "that's dumb." Before you make a post in here, ask yourself, "am I really adding anything to the conversation?" If the answer is "no", you probably shouldn't make the post."

Source: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11213.0#.VkWvNr872bI

Definitely an alt. You're defensive of each other, you know, and rather obsessed with JRowe.
Here's a bit of context for you: Jadyyn, there had said something that was simply false. There was no need to say anything more. If I said "The moon is made of cheese," you could say the same to me.

*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #107 on: November 13, 2015, 01:54:01 AM »
Thebigone ran away from all the hard arguments.

Strongly disagree. I don't think he/she ran away, he merely dodged them. Since he stayed on this topic, but refused to provide evidence to support his original claim that "Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth" it seems he simply refuse to provide scientific evidence without any intention of leaving the topic.

When a person leaves a topic when inquired about it, on purpose, it is considered trolling, the "classic" kind of. Since he's still posting here, I doubt he ran away.

*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #108 on: November 13, 2015, 01:57:47 AM »
Definitely an alt. You're defensive of each other, you know, and rather obsessed with JRowe.
Here's a bit of context for you: Jadyyn, there had said something that was simply false. There was no need to say anything more. If I said "The moon is made of cheese," you could say the same to me.

Well, then that own line of thought can be applied to you. So, I can call you an alt based on this content right now: You're rather obsessed with me and jadyyn, and is defensive of JRowe. So, that means you're an alt too? I don't think so.

Your logic is flawed just as the evidence you presented about denpressure. Oh, wait. You didn't present any evidence. Your logic is flawed as it is, then.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #109 on: November 13, 2015, 02:12:49 AM »
Did you do the math? I'm not the one who refused to provide math this time.
I did do. If you take xnw/w (xn is the area of the sides in your box) you get xn (the ratio, according to you). If you divide the ratio by the surface areas as you said to make it dimensionless, we get xn/xn=1. So we always end up with a 1. Your math is really bad.

I'm not even sure how you're trying to compare a closed cylinder to the gap between our feet and the ground.
How can a distance between two walls not be compared to the distance between the ground and your feet? Distance accounts for the largest fluctuations in pressure according to your model.

There's a whole other direction available,
Apparently not, if we look at your closed-box example. Which doesn't hold.

do you understand my argument at all?
Yes. Probably better than you do in fact.

Besides, when we walk, there is initially no gap.
Yes there is. There are plenty of air pockets under our feet all the time, they are not uniform.

Air has to rush in into it: its motion is horizontal.
Still air pockets. Look at your feet. Are they perfectly flat? If you say yes, then you better check your eyesight. Also, ground provides pressure upwards.

And yet again, the distance isn't what matters, it's the ratio. As I said, you're rambling.

And whats the ratio between a distance of 1 millimeter and a distance of at least 30km (space starts at 100km, but no commercial planes go so high so let's just say 30 km. I feel like it's enough to demonstrate the point)? That'd be roughly 1:30000000 (one to thirty million). So the pressure under our feet would be 30 million times something stronger than the pressure above us. No matter how small this constant something is, pressure will be greater under our feet than above us and so we will fall up.
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 #110 on: November 13, 2015, 03:34:26 AM »
all your considerations about the cilinder are based on a wrong assumption... inside a pressure vessel, in normal conditions, there is no flow of molecules from one side to the other, all are confinend in a very small space by the huge number of molecules in their sorroundings. in a simpler way, there's no way for a molecule that bounces off the wall of the cylinder to impact the wall on the opposite side, it 'll impact another air molecule muche sooner and deflect its trajectory, making it impact with another molecule and so on.

just to prove my point here some math.
air density at sealevel and 15°c is 1.225 kg/m^3 so if we consider a volume of 1 cm^3 (a cube of 1cm of side, if u're not used to international system a cm is less tha half an inch)  we have 0.001225 grams of air. the molar mass of air is 28.96u, which means that a mole of air has a mass of 28.96 grams. a cubic centimeter of air in the conditions described above has (0.001225/28.96) 4.23*10^-5 moles, since a mole contains 6.022*10^23 molecules a cubic centimeter of air is formed by
 ((4.23*10^-5)*(6.022*10^23)) 2.5473*10^19 molecules of air, just for comparison a bilion of molecules would be 1*10^9.

so, do u really think that a molecule bouncing off the side of a cylinder has some chance of travelling all the way to the other side without first impacting another molecule?

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #111 on: November 13, 2015, 11:41:13 AM »
Can someone please ban Kirk? He insults in every thread. I'd guess he's Jadyyn's alt to blow off steam and insult everyone.

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #112 on: November 13, 2015, 11:42:44 AM »
Did you do the math? I'm not the one who refused to provide math this time.
I did do. If you take xnw/w (xn is the area of the sides in your box) you get xn (the ratio, according to you). If you divide the ratio by the surface areas as you said to make it dimensionless, we get xn/xn=1. So we always end up with a 1. Your math is really bad.

I'm not even sure how you're trying to compare a closed cylinder to the gap between our feet and the ground.
How can a distance between two walls not be compared to the distance between the ground and your feet? Distance accounts for the largest fluctuations in pressure according to your model.

There's a whole other direction available,
Apparently not, if we look at your closed-box example. Which doesn't hold.

do you understand my argument at all?
Yes. Probably better than you do in fact.

Besides, when we walk, there is initially no gap.
Yes there is. There are plenty of air pockets under our feet all the time, they are not uniform.

Air has to rush in into it: its motion is horizontal.
Still air pockets. Look at your feet. Are they perfectly flat? If you say yes, then you better check your eyesight. Also, ground provides pressure upwards.

And yet again, the distance isn't what matters, it's the ratio. As I said, you're rambling.

And whats the ratio between a distance of 1 millimeter and a distance of at least 30km (space starts at 100km, but no commercial planes go so high so let's just say 30 km. I feel like it's enough to demonstrate the point)? That'd be roughly 1:30000000 (one to thirty million). So the pressure under our feet would be 30 million times something stronger than the pressure above us. No matter how small this constant something is, pressure will be greater under our feet than above us and so we will fall up.
You begin with math that bears no relation to what I gave, you don't understand how lifting your foot up does not provide a closed box (???), and you seem to be somehow ignoring the horizontal direction entirely. As a straw man goes, that's a very impressive one.

*

TheBigOne

  • 213
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #113 on: November 13, 2015, 11:44:21 AM »
all your considerations about the cilinder are based on a wrong assumption... inside a pressure vessel, in normal conditions, there is no flow of molecules from one side to the other, all are confinend in a very small space by the huge number of molecules in their sorroundings. in a simpler way, there's no way for a molecule that bounces off the wall of the cylinder to impact the wall on the opposite side, it 'll impact another air molecule muche sooner and deflect its trajectory, making it impact with another molecule and so on.

just to prove my point here some math.
air density at sealevel and 15°c is 1.225 kg/m^3 so if we consider a volume of 1 cm^3 (a cube of 1cm of side, if u're not used to international system a cm is less tha half an inch)  we have 0.001225 grams of air. the molar mass of air is 28.96u, which means that a mole of air has a mass of 28.96 grams. a cubic centimeter of air in the conditions described above has (0.001225/28.96) 4.23*10^-5 moles, since a mole contains 6.022*10^23 molecules a cubic centimeter of air is formed by
 ((4.23*10^-5)*(6.022*10^23)) 2.5473*10^19 molecules of air, just for comparison a bilion of molecules would be 1*10^9.

so, do u really think that a molecule bouncing off the side of a cylinder has some chance of travelling all the way to the other side without first impacting another molecule?
No, the model provided a mathematically intelligible simplification. This is what modelling is. What a molecule does do, however, is provide a direction of movement which will cause another molecule to hit the far wall, with far more energy the closer that molecule is to the first.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #114 on: November 13, 2015, 12:24:53 PM »
You begin with math that bears no relation to what I gave,
I just did the math according to what you said I should do. You don't know what it looks like when you do the math your way?

you don't understand how lifting your foot up does not provide a closed box (???),
No, I don't understand how lifting a foot provides a closed box. However, I do know that earth's atmosphere is a closed system (more or less).

and you seem to be somehow ignoring the horizontal direction entirely. As a straw man goes, that's a very impressive one.
Horizontal pressure should equalize. If it doesn't according to your model, then that is another incoherence.

And you are still evading the point that according to your model, pressure should be greater under us than above us, and therefore we should fall up.
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 #115 on: November 13, 2015, 12:41:08 PM »
all your considerations about the cilinder are based on a wrong assumption... inside a pressure vessel, in normal conditions, there is no flow of molecules from one side to the other, all are confinend in a very small space by the huge number of molecules in their sorroundings. in a simpler way, there's no way for a molecule that bounces off the wall of the cylinder to impact the wall on the opposite side, it 'll impact another air molecule muche sooner and deflect its trajectory, making it impact with another molecule and so on.

just to prove my point here some math.
air density at sealevel and 15°c is 1.225 kg/m^3 so if we consider a volume of 1 cm^3 (a cube of 1cm of side, if u're not used to international system a cm is less tha half an inch)  we have 0.001225 grams of air. the molar mass of air is 28.96u, which means that a mole of air has a mass of 28.96 grams. a cubic centimeter of air in the conditions described above has (0.001225/28.96) 4.23*10^-5 moles, since a mole contains 6.022*10^23 molecules a cubic centimeter of air is formed by
 ((4.23*10^-5)*(6.022*10^23)) 2.5473*10^19 molecules of air, just for comparison a bilion of molecules would be 1*10^9.

so, do u really think that a molecule bouncing off the side of a cylinder has some chance of travelling all the way to the other side without first impacting another molecule?
No, the model provided a mathematically intelligible simplification. This is what modelling is. What a molecule does do, however, is provide a direction of movement which will cause another molecule to hit the far wall, with far more energy the closer that molecule is to the first.
no you cannot neglect the bilions of bilions of bilions of molecules, otherwise u just providing a model that cannot apply to the air at sealevel pressure. u're talking about air we breath and u cannot walk your way around the fact that there's a huge amount of molecules in a thiny space.  about the impact u're over semplifying again, the impact does not means that the impacted molecules we'll depart with the same direction that the impacting molecule had, this is not how it works. since all the molecules have different direction and velocity when the impact eachother their direction and speed is changed accordingly to the angle of impact and the molecules' own kinetical energy and momentum. and considering the numeber of molecules and impact the result is that there's no predetermined direction of flow for the particles which simply move randomly hitting every surface within the pressure vessel with the same number of impact for unit of surface and time, causing an uniform pressure.

briefly u're understanding is foundamentally wrong, fluid inside a cylinder are in static condition on a macroscopic scale, there's no flow from one side to the other.

moreover if you had read the links that i've posted you would have understod that all pressure vessel are desinged considering an uniform pressure inside so if you right about different pressure between the sides and the ends good luck next time u'll go scuba diving or buy a propane tank for your barbecue.

*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #116 on: November 13, 2015, 12:45:13 PM »
Can someone please ban Kirk? He insults in every thread. I'd guess he's Jadyyn's alt to blow off steam and insult everyone.

Show proof. I can show proof you are trying to insult me calling me an alt as an effort to avoid my questions. That's low.

*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #117 on: November 13, 2015, 12:47:23 PM »
No, the model provided a mathematically intelligible simplification. This is what modelling is. What a molecule does do, however, is provide a direction of movement which will cause another molecule to hit the far wall, with far more energy the closer that molecule is to the first.

This is entirely wrong, according to physics. This makes no sense at all. And even IF it would be true - ignoring all scientific knowledge - it would NOT back up your previous statements.

What you said is simply NOT true.

?

luckyfred

  • 524
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #118 on: November 13, 2015, 12:54:10 PM »
do u wanna a final disproof of u're theory?

How does u're theory explain zero-g flight?

in case u don't know u get on a plane, it gets in the air, then it's been put on a parabolic maneuvers and u experience the absence of weight.... but here's the catch, the airplane is still pressurized and the air in the cabin is solidal to the reference system f the airplane so u don't have any acceleration between u and what u claim is the source of weight force.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth
« Reply #119 on: November 13, 2015, 02:46:37 PM »
I asked you:
Quote

What dome are you talking about? I have never mentioned a dome, much less one of ice.
Your thread is called "Denpressure is the best explanation for what keeps us on the Earth".  Denpressure is scepti's "model" and at it's heart is a giant ice dome.  Without the ice dome you don't have denpressure.  Maybe you should have a cursory look at the model you are championing  ::)

Quote
The gravity formula functions as a means of measuring ripples. You claim these ripples are in space, I take the logical step of saying they are in fluidic space.
This doesn't really mean anything.

So, given you are now not doing Denpressure, what stops the atmosphere from flying off into space?

I learnt of the denpressure theory from a concave Earther, I've had little experience with Sceptimatic.
There is no dome. There is fluidic space, which we can observe, extending to the threshold of the atmosphere, so that the vibrations of the Sun's heat and waves of light reach us. The fluid is what compresses air against the Earth.
So how will this let us find Neptune (mathematically) by watching Uranus' movement? How would it let us find Pluto based on Uranus' and Neptune's movement?
Quote
The existence of an unknown ninth planet was first proposed by Percival Lowell, who theorized that wobbles in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune were caused by the gravitational pull of an unknown planetary body. Lowell calculated the approximate location of the hypothesized ninth planet and searched for more than a decade without success. However, in 1929, using the calculations of Powell and W.H. Pickering as a guide, the search for Pluto was resumed at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona. On February 18, 1930, Tombaugh discovered the tiny, distant planet by use of a new astronomic technique of photographic plates combined with a blink microscope. His finding was confirmed by several other astronomers, and on March 13, 1930–the anniversary of Lowell’s birth and of William Hershel’s discovery of Uranus–the discovery of Pluto was publicly announced.(http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pluto-discovered)
We observe wobbles in stars over years and can determine other masses rotating around them. How do we do this with denpressure (air pressure - sceptimatic; or fluidic space - BigOne)?
Motion through fluid, ripples. I explained this.
Yes, ON fluids there are ripples/waves (like stones dropped in a pond). Tides ebb - come and go. These are very similar to sine waves/sinc waves. IN fluids are there ripples/waves (i.e. under water)? I didn't think so because seismic S waves do not travel through liquids. Neptune and Pluto did not move in ripples/waves. They did not pull Uranus and Neptune in ripples/waves. There was a constant pull that behaved according to gravitational formulas based on distance (squared).
You're wrong.
Well that explains denpressure. I will remember this type of answer when other FEers ask me arguments. Thank you.
"You're wrong." How?

Why weren't you threatened with being banned?
“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."