Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

  • 3822 Replies
  • 95177 Views
INTRODUCTION:

Den pressure appears to be a great Flat Earth theory that would be easily testable by the FE Community in their homes or local area.  I'd like to work with the community, mainly Scepty and iWitness to first define what Den Pressure is and what the expected results of Den Pressure would be when it comes to various situations.

Everyone else welcome, but I ask that we make this a topic on the testable truth of Den Pressure and not get off topic.  That means no discussion on Gravity.  We are not here in this thread to prove Gravity exists, only to test the theory of Den Pressure.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 06:52:53 AM by sandmanMike »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2016, 04:24:39 AM »
DEFINTION:

Den Pressure:
Is the act of Air Pressure creating weight by pressing down on an object.  The density of an object determines how much air pressure affects how much force is transferred to the object to create weight.  For instance a less dense object would be affected less and in return would weight less.

Air Pressure:


Density:


Resources:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 07:05:38 AM by sandmanMike »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2016, 04:25:30 AM »
EXPERIMENT 1:

Material Density affects how much PSI an object can absorb.  A less dense object will absorb more PSI making it weigh less, while a more dense object will repel/push against more psi making the object heavier.

How about wood and metal, then?  Neither bends at all in response to the wind, but the metal is still much heavier.
Because the metal cannot absorb the amount of atmospheric pressure as the wood can and therefore repels more psi upon is whilst the wood would absorb some of that psi, leaving the pressure upon it, less and therefore less pressure upon your hand or your scale plate.

To test this Hypothesis we will need a control and different material types as well as a way to apply air pressure to the object.

What you'll need:
Scale (digital preferred)
Small peice of Wood
Small peice of Metal
Compressed Air which can emit a constant controlled airflow.

Instructions:
Place the Scale on a steady surface and zero it out.
Affix the Compressed Air to allow it to point down directly at the scale.
Apply the Compressed Air to the scale and measure the scales weight with the consistent air flow. Record Results.

Place the piece of wood on top of the scale. 
Zero out the scale. 
Adjust air so it is same distance from piece of Wood. 
Apply Compressed Air. 
Record Weight Results on Scale.

Follow the above steps for the piece of metal and as many other different types of material as you like making sure to Zero out the scale and having the same size objects.

All objects should be solid to prevent air bleed.

Hypothesis:
Less dense objects will have a smaller weight gain from the applied air pressure then more dense objects.
The wood should have a smaller weight gain than the same sized piece of metal.



« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 06:53:40 AM by sandmanMike »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2016, 04:26:15 AM »
EXPERIMENT 2:

The Density of an Object is determined on how much Atmosphere it can absorb.  If the atmosphere is replaced with another material or it is squished to remove the atmosphere then it will weight the same in units to volume as other objects at the same volume.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.


Thanks Scepti!  Now to find a testable way of measuring this Hypothesis.

The theory is that an object weighs less because it is porous (in other words less dense) and has areas filled with air.  Because of this the air pressure that is applied to it is does not affect the entire object because it's able to flow through the object. 

If all of those areas were then filled with the same substance, then a sponge and a wood that had had the porous areas (for lack of a better word) removed would weigh the same.

Am I understanding that correctly Scepti?
You are understanding it correctly.

To test this experiment we'll need a control and different materials that weigh different amounts but are roughly the same volume.

What you'll need:
4+ Measuring Containers, all need to be the same size and able to measure precisely.
Metal - Same size as wood and sponge
Wood
Sponge
Water
Scale

Instructions:
Place each object in a Container
Weigh each container and record results

Pour water into each container to the same measurement level.  (The water should cover each item completely with some extra room above the object).
Leave containers overnight to allow for water to go into the porous areas of each object and remove the atmosphere.

Add any water needed to each container so that each container's water level matches.  This will ensure that each container is holding the same volume of material.
Weigh each container and record results.

Hypothesis:
By leaving the water in overnight this should allow all of the objects to absorb the water and remove any atmosphere inside of the object.  Because weight is determined on density all of the densities of these objects should match and each container will now weigh the same amount.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 10:08:39 AM by sandmanMike »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2016, 04:27:27 AM »
EXPERIMENT 3:

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.
No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.
Please explain more.

The gist seems to be that the force exerted by denpressure is down to the fact that we displace air. It takes a certain amount of force to do that, so there's an equal and opposite reaction on us. We push the upwards-stacked air, and it pushed back. The swimming pool analogy is a good one to get this idea across: just imagine standing on your head (assuming uniform density of the water, if we're being picky). To fully submerge yourself, whether horizontal or vertical, displaces exactly the same amount of water. As such, exactly the same amount of pressure would act on the body.
If you've ever been in a pool, you know the water pushes you up: and yet it's easier to float if you lie on your back than stand up, because when lying the upwards/downwards pressure is spread out.

I'll admit to not being sold on denpressure as a viable model, but it's just silly to claim it can't answer questions which it definitely can.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.
Surface area is a factor I believe, but more when it comes to the distribution of force. The total amount of force strictly depends on the volume of air displaced (hence why porous objects would displace less and so exert less force). It's quite neat, actually.
Analogy's analogy, it's never going to be perfect. I will say I don't believe Scepti adheres to the model of molecules you're likely familiar with, but even so bricks don't need to be cemented together to stack.

Equipment
Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

Method
1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Predictions
Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.

What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.014 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 05:10:48 PM by sandmanMike »

*

AdamSK

  • 229
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2016, 04:27:39 AM »
Fantastic idea!  Hopefully we can get a quantification of how air interacts with objects under various conditions and some way to measure and predict the effects.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2016, 04:28:47 AM »
CONCLUSION:
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 06:54:52 AM by sandmanMike »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2016, 04:42:56 AM »
Please feel free to correct me on any of this stuff, I will freely admit I'm not an expert on Den Pressure and am only sharing my basic understanding of it based off of what I've grasped these last couple days.


*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11155
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2016, 04:50:23 AM »
Please feel free to correct me on any of this stuff, I will freely admit I'm not an expert on Den Pressure and am only sharing my basic understanding of it based off of what I've grasped these last couple days.
As all of your experiment are blank, my guess is that you have no understanding of the topic whatsoever. ::)
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

neutrino

  • 635
  • FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2016, 06:12:28 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2016, 06:20:12 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2016, 06:22:27 AM »
Please feel free to correct me on any of this stuff, I will freely admit I'm not an expert on Den Pressure and am only sharing my basic understanding of it based off of what I've grasped these last couple days.
As all of your experiment are blank, my guess is that you have no understanding of the topic whatsoever. ::)

Please stay on topic.  This topic is to be built upon by the community.  The empty experiment posts are so that we can have create experiments based on what is defined as Den Pressure and then have at the top of the thread an areas for those experiments to be recorded and kept instead of being buried in pages on a thread.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2016, 06:25:20 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?

*

neutrino

  • 635
  • FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2016, 06:53:58 AM »
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2016, 07:01:13 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2016, 07:16:49 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.

Thanks Scepti!  Now to find a testable way of measuring this Hypothesis.

The theory is that an object weighs less because it is porous (in other words less dense) and has areas filled with air.  Because of this the air pressure that is applied to it is does not affect the entire object because it's able to flow through the object. 

If all of those areas were then filled with the same substance, then a sponge and a wood that had had the porous areas (for lack of a better word) removed would weigh the same.

Am I understanding that correctly Scepti?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2016, 07:26:53 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Scepti, could you please define.  We are working off of your premise and knowledge here.  We're not hear to say you're wrong, we just want to define your Hypothesis.

Could you please elaborate on how Air Pressure affects weight?
Ok let's put this simply and let's see who has the ability to see it simply.

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of wood and a sponge, all of equal size to the eye.
We know that the Lead is heavier than the wood and the wood is heavier than the sponge.

The reason this is the case is because the Lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure upon it and the ground is the solid in which the Lead pushes against, so we now perceive a push on push effect.
To measure this effect we use a man made scale plate to place the Lead onto and this now becomes the ground that the Lead pushes against the atmosphere as the atmosphere pushes back by the amount of itself that's been displaced by the actual Lead block.

The wood displaces much less because the wood is much more porous than the Lead and allows atmospheric pressure to saturate it.

The sponge is even more porous and allows the atmosphere to severely saturate it. By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.

Squeeze the wood and you can at least make its size a quarter of its original. or more, showing that this is the real size of the object for displacing the atmosphere.

The sponge could be squeezed to the size of a pea or more and this shows you how much the sponge was displacing of the atmosphere.

This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.

Now I believe I've explained this perfectly well. I at least expect people to sit back and really ponder it before coming back at me with their thoughts.

Thanks Scepti!  Now to find a testable way of measuring this Hypothesis.

The theory is that an object weighs less because it is porous (in other words less dense) and has areas filled with air.  Because of this the air pressure that is applied to it is does not affect the entire object because it's able to flow through the object. 

If all of those areas were then filled with the same substance, then a sponge and a wood that had had the porous areas (for lack of a better word) removed would weigh the same.

Am I understanding that correctly Scepti?
You are understanding it correctly.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2016, 07:32:13 AM »
I want to know more about what is physically occurring.  What does "porous" mean? 

Is air trying to find its way into metal? 
Is air trying to form a chemical reaction to metal? failing which, the consequences are denpressure? 

The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.
What is a block of tungsten doing more that a block of lead can only do less? 

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9229
  • V is for Viceroy
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2016, 07:34:03 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2016, 07:42:01 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?

Let's keep this on topic, we're not hear to define vacuum.  We're hear to define and test Den Pressure.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2016, 07:43:05 AM »
I want to know more about what is physically occurring.  What does "porous" mean? 

Is air trying to find its way into metal?
Basically yes. If you want to look at it that way, it's a good way to look at it because it explains a lot of things easier if you keep that mindset.
 
Is air trying to form a chemical reaction to metal? failing which, the consequences are denpressure?
Basically yes. The atmospheric pressure is basically trying to send everything back into order. It's a cycle of pushing up by energy against pushing into and back against by pressure.

What is a block of tungsten doing more that a block of lead can only do less?
This is all about where they sit in Earth and the energy it takes to separate the materials.
It's basically down to friction and frequency of vibration. Or to put it simply, it's the massive expansion of matter and the ability to be cooled under varying pressures that determines how much each matter holds in their make up in terms of trapped atmospheric pressure.

That probably might not explain much. Maybe you can grasp that.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2016, 07:53:17 AM »
Scepti, would you say Experiment 1 would be fair and accurate test of the Hypothesis Presented?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2016, 07:55:58 AM »
Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.
It relies on lowering pressure to increase the atmospheric force. A turbo charger does the same thing.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.
Because under normal atmospheric conditions, the chamber and the balloon put into it are under around 14.7 psi of pressure.
Once the pump allows the chamber to evacuate pressure, the molecules inside becomes less dense and expand. Because of this, the dense molecules inside the balloon do exactly the same thing and expand. Because they expand and cannot get out of the balloon, the balloon expands as well. It's simply LOWERING the pressure and is not and never is, a vacuum.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.
Same as the balloon. It's simply expansion of matter with a pump allowing it to expand out of the chamber.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?
You are seeing and perceiving the matter/molecules expanding against each other due to the pump stopping the denser atmospheric pressure from entering the chamber; allowing those expanded molecules to PUSH out by expansion within themselves.

*

AdamSK

  • 229
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2016, 07:57:27 AM »
So if we use a vacuum pump on an enclosed space, will that reduce the weight of the objects therein?

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9229
  • V is for Viceroy
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2016, 08:00:55 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?

Let's keep this on topic, we're not hear to define vacuum.  We're hear to define and test Den Pressure.

Alright. Your thread your rules.

So basically porosity = weight?  So what we would expect to see is that anything impermeable must weigh more than anything porous?
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

AdamSK

  • 229
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2016, 08:03:07 AM »
By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.
The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.
This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.
So if we have a fist-sized lump of lead and a fist-sized diamond, the diamond will be much easier to squash because it is so much lighter than the lead?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2016, 08:03:21 AM »
Scepti, would you say Experiment 1 would be fair and accurate test of the Hypothesis Presented?
Ok I've just read through your experiment 1. You're sort of on the right lines with this experiment but it needs to be done fairly accurately. This way is intriguing.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2016, 08:07:14 AM »
So if we use a vacuum pump on an enclosed space, will that reduce the weight of the objects therein?
You have to weigh them and that requires man made scales which are also made under atmospheric conditions which means they can be affected by the change.

Try the experiments with manual kitchen scales (not digital) in a chamber and see what results you come up with.
Don't see this as an argument against me, see it as an experiment for your own mind..

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2016, 08:08:48 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I will measure weight in vacuum, it should be zero? In absolute vacuum of course.

I have some very precise scales in a lab at your disposal.
Understanding that an absolute vacuum cannot be made on Earth means suspended animation will never be achieved, because that's exactly what the absence of matter would be if we can imagine it.
We have to play with low pressures. That's the best we can do.
The key to evacuating pressure is to understand how it's done. Most people believe they know but the truth is, they don't know. They simply believe they know because the text books tell them that vacuum pumps suck air out. It's not true and is a massive dupe.

Let's not gloss over this last point as its critically important. How are the textbooks duping everyone here?

I can think of several ways to verify that a vacuum chamber in fact has a vacuum.

The carburetor / fuel injection system relies on a vacuum to fuel an internal combustion engine.

If we evacuate a chamber with a balloon in it we'll see it expand.

If we evacuate a chamber filled with smoke we'll see it become clearer and clearer.

So where are we going wrong here? What effect are we actually seeing?

Let's keep this on topic, we're not hear to define vacuum.  We're hear to define and test Den Pressure.

Alright. Your thread your rules.

So basically porosity = weight?  So what we would expect to see is that anything impermeable must weigh more than anything porous?
Yes, basically.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2016, 08:12:09 AM »
By how much Each block is pushing back/into the atmosphere, all we have to do is to SQUASH each block until we eject all or most of the atmosphere within the blocks.
The Lead will naturally resist and lose little to no atmosphere within it because there is little in it.
This is the reason why different weight measurements show up for those objects and every other object that is under pressure of push on push.
So if we have a fist-sized lump of lead and a fist-sized diamond, the diamond will be much easier to squash because it is so much lighter than the lead?
No. It's not about being easier to actually squash. It's about being able to release trapped atmosphere within the object. If you can't release the trapped atmosphere, then your object has little or none of it, meaning it's basically very dense.