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

Well this is a lot to consider.  In the mean time what exactly are these molecules made of.  In Chemistry we learn about the basic structure of electronics and how these bind together to form molecules.  Under this system there's a huge amount of empty space between any two molecules.  Also, as we understand it, a molecule cannot be shrunk or stretched.  Chemistry doesn't allow it.  You would just end up destroying the molecule.

One more question, off topic really.  Where are you from? I'm guessing English is your second language?

To go down the chemistry route is to veer off course from allowing people to get a grasp on what's being talked about in the simplest manner possible. Let's try and keep it that way before there's any real need to go too deep.

As for English being my second language. Yes it is.

Quote from: Woody on August 03, 2016, 12:48:45 PM

Would measuring the difference between the force required to push and lift an object work?

Submarines have pressure pushing against their entire hull, not just the top.  At least that is what we are told.  Maybe an experiment measuring the pressure exerted on an object could shed some light on the matter.  If it is equal then someone can refer to the first experiment I suggested.

How about releasing a fluid in a chamber and seeing what happens?  It should eventually be denser towards the bottom or an explanation is needed to explain why the atmosphere gets denser at lower altitudes.

I will agree with those that said this is the most constructive thread I have seen.

That is because the idiot trolls haven't started their destructive bs.

Let's keep this attitude up then, this thread is the way this entire site should function in my humble opinion.

Anyone who doesn't want their hypothesis' tested with the scientific method has no interest in the truth.

Scepti, so what really happens in the syringe which is sealed at hose is that the molecules are expanded. So are the atoms? Or just the distances between atoms? Here is something that came into mind:
0) Is it theoretically possible to expand a molecule to a size of a ... car?
1) If this is what happens to molecules on Earth, what would they look like in space? Maybe then all those celestial bodies are just molecules that are expanded to that great size because of lack of air
2) Also, why would molecules expand? There is no air "inside" of them so they could be 'inflated'.

You said "the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber"

This means that without air molecules supporting it, the chamber would collapse?

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

Explain this please? I am having a hard time understanding FET

Scepti, so what really happens in the syringe which is sealed at hose is that the molecules are expanded. So are the atoms? Or just the distances between atoms? Here is something that came into mind:
0) Is it theoretically possible to expand a molecule to a size of a ... car?

No. A molecule or atom or whatever you want to know it as will only expand under vibration. Basically under compression and expansion by energy applied.
Once that vibration gets less frequent due to less energy causing that agitation due to expansion, then the molecules start to go dormant. basically they freeze to our perception.

1) If this is what happens to molecules on Earth, what would they look like in space?

There are none in space because space does not exist. However, this is another story and will just complicate matters.

Maybe then all those celestial bodies are just molecules that are expanded to that great size because of lack of air

As above.

2) Also, why would molecules expand? There is no air "inside" of them so they could be 'inflated'.

The key is to under stand that molecules are under compression. Think of a Jack in the box. We all know it's a Jack in the box but is that it's natural state?
What is a natural state to us?
Is it Jack being released from the box so his spring expands?
What happens to Jack when he's allowed to come out of that box? Is it game over?

Jack's became dormant. He offers no more force for any particular reason.
Use your energy to squash Jack back into that box. He's just a bundle of potential energy if he stays there.

This sounds childish but there's logic in there.

A brick weighs the same whatever the atmospheric pressure.  Air pressure is not directional.

A brick weighs the same whatever way it is placed on a scale.  Clearly the weight is not due to any downwards pressure to the top surface from air or anything else above it.

You said "the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber"

This means that without air molecules supporting it, the chamber would collapse?

It's self explanatory. No internal support by evacuation of matter means more external pressure and potential collapse unless a chamber is build strong enough to cater for the strength of the pump allowing expansion of internal matter to external..

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 03, 2016, 11:40:03 PM

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

Explain this please? I am having a hard time understanding FET

It's all explained in this topic. Read it through.

BTW, I have gallium if this can help us (for example submerging more heavy metals). However it is not transparent, so you can't see a thing in there...

A brick weighs the same whatever the atmospheric pressure.  Air pressure is not directional.

A brick weighs the same whatever way it is placed on a scale.  Clearly the weight is not due to any downwards pressure to the top surface from air or anything else above it.

Just leave. That's been explained and the fact you like an argument doesn't mean you get to keep repeating it. There's an actually interesting discussion going on in this thread, which is rare on this site, and you butting in with points you've literally already had addressed is just a pain. It's not smart, it's not clever, it's just irritating.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805796#msg1805796
It's down to volume of air displaced rather than surface area: all the latter decides is how distributed the force is, the former decides on the magnitude of said force.
Get a new argument for once.

Quote from: inquisitive on August 04, 2016, 01:37:46 AM

A brick weighs the same whatever the atmospheric pressure.  Air pressure is not directional.

A brick weighs the same whatever way it is placed on a scale.  Clearly the weight is not due to any downwards pressure to the top surface from air or anything else above it.

Just leave. That's been explained and the fact you like an argument doesn't mean you get to keep repeating it. There's an actually interesting discussion going on in this thread, which is rare on this site, and you butting in with points you've literally already had addressed is just a pain. It's not smart, it's not clever, it's just irritating.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg1805796#msg1805796
It's down to volume of air displaced rather than surface area: all the latter decides is how distributed the force is, the former decides on the magnitude of said force.
Get a new argument for once.

It was not answered.

What does 'upwards stacked air' mean?  What measured difference in pressure is there from the bottom to the top of an object to influence its weight.

You are claiming density is related to displaced air in a substance.  There is more air in copper than lead?

This does explain how a scale measures the weight of an object.  Where is the downward force?

It was not answered.

What does 'upwards stacked air' mean?  What measured difference in pressure is there from the bottom to the top of an object to influence its weight.

You are claiming density is related to displaced air in a substance.  There is more air in copper than lead?

This does explain how a scale measures the weight of an object.  Where is the downward force?

I'm not claiming it, I'm recounting the model. Even if you don't have the slightest idea what upwards stacked air is, that's not the part that answers your question. Displacement is what matters under this model, so even if you don't understand that you should at least be able to shut up about surface area given that it's not the key factor. And yes, as is pointed out in literally the first few posts of this thread, the model does claim that lighter objects are more porous and so can contain air, like a sponge.
Just think of it in terms of inverse buoyancy. In a pool, water's all around you, but you only get pushed in one direction: up, and by this model that's because that's the direction from which you displaced the water.

Query for Scepti:

Ok, so I was thinking about the balloon situation as a means of possibly getting numbers, as many people ask for, for a concrete value of the pressure exerted. However, there's one detail I can't get my head around.
If we take an uninflated balloon, and weigh it, it weighs slightly less than an inflated and tied off balloon. Initially I put that down to it displacing more air, but the more I thought about it that wouldn't seem to be the case, as volume of the material of the balloon is constant, and given how porous objects behave, it doesn't seem like it should be the case that the air within the balloon is counted as displaced. So, there are two cases:
If the air within the balloon isn't counted as displaced, which feels right to me, then why would the weight measured of a balloon increase when inflated? The amount of displaced air doesn't alter.
Second case: if, instead, the air within the balloon counts as displaced, we'd need the inside of the balloon to essentially be an isolated system, separate from the stack outside it, in which case shouldn't there be an internal denpressure system? (eg: if you slide something like a paperclip inside and inflate, and turn the balloon around, the paperclip should stay pressed to one side independent of the external pressure).

First case is what feels like should be the case, from my understanding of denpressure, but I can't reconcile it with the fact an inflated balloon, despite displacing an equal amount of air, weighs more.
It might be that I've forgotten to take something into account, in which case please could you let me know?

Edit: only solution I can see is that the scale's measuring the air pressure inside the balloon, which adds a bit, but as it ought to do so to all sides there might be a simple experiment we can do on this, if this is indeed the explanation.

Quote from: inquisitive on August 04, 2016, 03:32:07 AM

It was not answered.

What does 'upwards stacked air' mean?  What measured difference in pressure is there from the bottom to the top of an object to influence its weight.

You are claiming density is related to displaced air in a substance.  There is more air in copper than lead?

This does explain how a scale measures the weight of an object.  Where is the downward force?

I'm not claiming it, I'm recounting the model. Even if you don't have the slightest idea what upwards stacked air is, that's not the part that answers your question. Displacement is what matters under this model, so even if you don't understand that you should at least be able to shut up about surface area given that it's not the key factor. And yes, as is pointed out in literally the first few posts of this thread, the model does claim that lighter objects are more porous and so can contain air, like a sponge.
Just think of it in terms of inverse buoyancy. In a pool, water's all around you, but you only get pushed in one direction: up, and by this model that's because that's the direction from which you displaced the water.

Please provide your definition of displacement so we all understand.

So surface area is not the key factor, but is relevant?  How?

'Up because that's the direction you displaced the water'  Seriously?  If I move along the bottom of the pool for 20m I still go straight up.

Still no proof of lead and copper falling at different speeds.

So I did the quick experiment with the syringe. It failed. I mean the metal spring stayed at constant length with normal pressure and much lower (to my understanding if I expand the chamber by factor of 3 I get one third of an atmosphere). I will make a video when I'll find a bigger container for water since the syringe I bought especially for this experiment is to big to hold in a big kitchen bowl. But here how it looks like:



Sorry for crappy pic. I'll do a video with my Sony Alpha and outside...

Query for Scepti:

Ok, so I was thinking about the balloon situation as a means of possibly getting numbers, as many people ask for, for a concrete value of the pressure exerted. However, there's one detail I can't get my head around.
If we take an uninflated balloon, and weigh it, it weighs slightly less than an inflated and tied off balloon. Initially I put that down to it displacing more air, but the more I thought about it that wouldn't seem to be the case, as volume of the material of the balloon is constant, and given how porous objects behave, it doesn't seem like it should be the case that the air within the balloon is counted as displaced. So, there are two cases:
If the air within the balloon isn't counted as displaced, which feels right to me, then why would the weight measured of a balloon increase when inflated? The amount of displaced air doesn't alter.
Second case: if, instead, the air within the balloon counts as displaced, we'd need the inside of the balloon to essentially be an isolated system, separate from the stack outside it, in which case shouldn't there be an internal denpressure system? (eg: if you slide something like a paperclip inside and inflate, and turn the balloon around, the paperclip should stay pressed to one side independent of the external pressure).

First case is what feels like should be the case, from my understanding of denpressure, but I can't reconcile it with the fact an inflated balloon, despite displacing an equal amount of air, weighs more.
It might be that I've forgotten to take something into account, in which case please could you let me know?

Edit: only solution I can see is that the scale's measuring the air pressure inside the balloon, which adds a bit, but as it ought to do so to all sides there might be a simple experiment we can do on this, if this is indeed the explanation.

Hmm..  it might depend on how you went about inflating the balloon,   if you blew it up normally then the exhaled air will be richer in CO2 and water vapour than the surrounding air.   Which would make it weigh heavier than when un-inflated. 

Carry on,   watching with interest to see which way this thread goes.

Query for Scepti:

Ok, so I was thinking about the balloon situation as a means of possibly getting numbers, as many people ask for, for a concrete value of the pressure exerted. However, there's one detail I can't get my head around.
If we take an uninflated balloon, and weigh it, it weighs slightly less than an inflated and tied off balloon. Initially I put that down to it displacing more air, but the more I thought about it that wouldn't seem to be the case, as volume of the material of the balloon is constant, and given how porous objects behave, it doesn't seem like it should be the case that the air within the balloon is counted as displaced. So, there are two cases:
If the air within the balloon isn't counted as displaced, which feels right to me, then why would the weight measured of a balloon increase when inflated? The amount of displaced air doesn't alter.
Second case: if, instead, the air within the balloon counts as displaced, we'd need the inside of the balloon to essentially be an isolated system, separate from the stack outside it, in which case shouldn't there be an internal denpressure system? (eg: if you slide something like a paperclip inside and inflate, and turn the balloon around, the paperclip should stay pressed to one side independent of the external pressure).

First case is what feels like should be the case, from my understanding of denpressure, but I can't reconcile it with the fact an inflated balloon, despite displacing an equal amount of air, weighs more.
It might be that I've forgotten to take something into account, in which case please could you let me know?

Edit: only solution I can see is that the scale's measuring the air pressure inside the balloon, which adds a bit, but as it ought to do so to all sides there might be a simple experiment we can do on this, if this is indeed the explanation.

Next week I'll to go the lab and will measure sponge + metal thing on it (The claim that when the sponge compressed under the pressure of metal thing will weigh less)

But the balloon test is not illustrative. It will really weigh more (a tiny bit). Why?
0) The air in the balloon is compressed (balloon causes pressure) => more dense air
1) You might inflate it with your mouth, so the air you inflate the balloon with is rich in CO2 and water, which both are heavier than normal air.
 

Next week I'll to go the lab and will measure sponge + metal thing on it (The claim that when the sponge compressed under the pressure of metal thing will weigh less)

That example might not be easily measurable, if you're testing my claim, don't worry about it. You'd need a very large sponge and very large bit of metal for the air forced out to have any meaningful impact under the RE model. Might be interesting though, if we do see a significant drop, because that'd be in favour of denpressure. Not much proof either way, without raw numbers.
Think the idea's that the sponge with metal on top weighs less than the sponge and metal side by side, though I'm not sure if it's an 'approved' experiment just yet. Would make sense though, as far as removing porous-ness (?) goes.

But the balloon test is not illustrative. It will really weigh more (a tiny bit). Why?
0) The air in the balloon is compressed (balloon causes pressure) => more dense air
1) You might inflate it with your mouth, so the air you inflate the balloon with is rich in CO2 and water, which both are heavier than normal air.

Inflating with mouth would be one issue, but if you remove that variable then the key issue would be the fact there's more pressure on the inside. If that's the case, though, it ought to be detected from all directions rather than just underneath, so if you place a scale on top of the balloon (upside down of course), under typical gravity I believe it'd only detect the weight of said scale (which we can figure out independently), while if pressure is to blame it ought to detect the weight plus the added pressure (which ought to be the same as the difference in weight between the inflated and deflated balloon, with the scale underneath). Might be some issues with balancing the scale on top, but otherwise...
Like I said, this variation in pressure seems to be the best answer, but if it's the case we can detect it.
Though, of course, need to make sure I'm understanding the model, hence awaiting Scepti's input.

Edit: plus, we ought to be able to correct for the errors in inflating by mouth. It's possible to just hold air in your mouth rather than lungs, so the composition wouldn't alter, and if you deflate the balloon (pointing the nozzle at the scales) and weigh it again after, you'd be able to see the weight of the moisture.

Please provide your definition of displacement so we all understand.
So surface area is not the key factor, but is relevant?  How?
'Up because that's the direction you displaced the water'  Seriously?  If I move along the bottom of the pool for 20m I still go straight up.

Why do you bother with threads if you're not interested in answers? Everyone knows what displacement means, I've explained surface area multiple times so far (it gives the area over which the force is distributed), and you enter a swimming pool from above invariably. Moving around when fully submerged doesn't displace more water it displaces exactly the same amount.

Query for Scepti:

Ok, so I was thinking about the balloon situation as a means of possibly getting numbers, as many people ask for, for a concrete value of the pressure exerted. However, there's one detail I can't get my head around.
If we take an uninflated balloon, and weigh it, it weighs slightly less than an inflated and tied off balloon. Initially I put that down to it displacing more air, but the more I thought about it that wouldn't seem to be the case, as volume of the material of the balloon is constant, and given how porous objects behave, it doesn't seem like it should be the case that the air within the balloon is counted as displaced. So, there are two cases:
If the air within the balloon isn't counted as displaced, which feels right to me, then why would the weight measured of a balloon increase when inflated? The amount of displaced air doesn't alter.

Ok, let's see if I can make a fist of explaining this.
Analogy time.
Imagine you have a container of various grains of slightly different densities. You know, sand, sugar, salt,baking powder, etc.
Ok, now as you know, the more of something there is, the more densely packed it will be due to more smaller particles.
Think of mud against sand as an instance.
I know you get this.

Anyway the container is a substitute analogy for atmosphere.
Now we place a ping pong ball at the bottom as a balloon analogy. Now, if you leave it at that, we will simply see a ping pong ball that is covered by various layers of grain (atmosphere) and yet it stays put. Start to tap the container and you see the ping pong ball start to rise. It is being pushed up because the denser particles are surrounding it but will find their place back at the bottom and in doing so will push up the ping pong ball by squeezing, except the ball doesn't crush, it merely resists the squeeze by sheer expansion inside of it -  and rises.


Hopefully this analogy might be enough to trigger your thoughts. If not, I'll try again.

Second case: if, instead, the air within the balloon counts as displaced, we'd need the inside of the balloon to essentially be an isolated system, separate from the stack outside it, in which case shouldn't there be an internal denpressure system? (eg: if you slide something like a paperclip inside and inflate, and turn the balloon around, the paperclip should stay pressed to one side independent of the external pressure).

Actually there is another force acting on the paper clip but it's a near equal force inside and that force will only change upon acceleration against an outside force, such as the obvious atmosphere working against that acceleration.
This requires a more in depth but still simplistic explanation which I'll provide if you wish, because I know you're taking notice.

First case is what feels like should be the case, from my understanding of denpressure, but I can't reconcile it with the fact an inflated balloon, despite displacing an equal amount of air, weighs more.
It might be that I've forgotten to take something into account, in which case please could you let me know?

Basically think of this.
When a balloon is deflated it's mass lies on a scale plate as simply a near airless flat rubber that displaces a tiny amount of atmosphere as we know.
Add atmosphere to that balloon and you make that balloon rise into the atmosphere by placing that external atmosphere into the internal balloon and now have a standing balloon being gripped around by external atmosphere.
This would make it  ever so slightly less in weight, because a near buoyancy has been sort of made.

Edit: only solution I can see is that the scale's measuring the air pressure inside the balloon, which adds a bit, but as it ought to do so to all sides there might be a simple experiment we can do on this, if this is indeed the explanation.

The air pressure put into the balloon is only the air pressure taken externally.

If I'm not being too clear then just say and I can try and use another thought on it.

Basically think of this.
When a balloon is deflated it's mass lies on a scale plate as simply a near airless flat rubber that displaces a tiny amount of atmosphere as we know.
Add atmosphere to that balloon and you make that balloon rise into the atmosphere by placing that external atmosphere into the internal balloon and now have a standing balloon being gripped around by external atmosphere.
This would make it  ever so slightly less in weight, because a near buoyancy has been sort of made.

I think I understand your initial analogy in light of this statement, it would make sense for an object that gains volume without gaining density to gain buoyancy of sorts.
My issue is that this isn't what we observe: if you fill a balloon with regular air (rather than, say, helium) we can measure a gain in weight, not a reduction. I distinctly recall seeing this done, and it'd be an easy thing to replicate if you want to check. In fact, I just did check before sending this post (albeit unscientifically, with kitchen scales and plastic gloves) and there was a gain in weight after inflation.

The air pressure put into the balloon is only the air pressure taken externally.

If I'm not being too clear then just say and I can try and use another thought on it.

I'm not completely sure what this bit means; does it just mean that the air pressure is transferred from the outside, rather than created or increased on the inside? If so, I think I've got it.

I think I understand your initial analogy in light of this statement, it would make sense for an object that gains volume without gaining density to gain buoyancy of sorts.
My issue is that this isn't what we observe: if you fill a balloon with regular air (rather than, say, helium) we can measure a gain in weight, not a reduction. I distinctly recall seeing this done, and it'd be an easy thing to replicate if you want to check. In fact, I just did check before sending this post (albeit unscientifically, with kitchen scales and plastic gloves) and there was a gain in weight after inflation.

Well that's news to me because I've done it and there was no change. I think the scales cannot record a buoyancy. Anyway it's one to ponder I suppose.

The air pressure put into the balloon is only the air pressure taken externally.

If I'm not being too clear then just say and I can try and use another thought on it

.

I'm not completely sure what this bit means; does it just mean that the air pressure is transferred from the outside, rather than created or increased on the inside? If so, I think I've got it.

Basically, yes.

Well that's news to me because I've done it and there was no change. I think the scales cannot record a buoyancy. Anyway it's one to ponder I suppose.

Might be worth adding this as a third experiment? If nothing else it'd demonstrate a difference between the models, if we see an upwards or downwards shift.
Might just be something that requires a degree of sensitivity. I'll be the first to admit my set-up wasn't great, kitchen scales don't offer too much detail, but I do recall seeing this done. Big enough balloon, sensitive scales... Certainly though, we shouldn't observe an increase in weight under the denpressure model.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 01:13:25 AM

You said "the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber"

This means that without air molecules supporting it, the chamber would collapse?

It's self explanatory. No internal support by evacuation of matter means more external pressure and potential collapse unless a chamber is build strong enough to cater for the strength of the pump allowing expansion of internal matter to external..

OK so if a chamber is constructed with sufficient support and strength, could you theoretically remove ALL gas from a chamber without collapse?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 07:42:13 AM

Well that's news to me because I've done it and there was no change. I think the scales cannot record a buoyancy. Anyway it's one to ponder I suppose.

Might be worth adding this as a third experiment? If nothing else it'd demonstrate a difference between the models, if we see an upwards or downwards shift.
Might just be something that requires a degree of sensitivity. I'll be the first to admit my set-up wasn't great, kitchen scales don't offer too much detail, but I do recall seeing this done. Big enough balloon, sensitive scales... Certainly though, we shouldn't observe an increase in weight under the denpressure model.

I agree. I think we should use any and all available potential experiments that can be mustered and see where we lie with it all as and when they get done.
With the right equipment, I think this could be certainly marked down as of massive potential to actually changing the science behind what we've all been brought up on.
Ok the changing science bit might be too far. I doubt the peers of dogma would go anywhere near it.
At least it can be used for our own inquisitive minds to keep fine tuning and fine tuning until it either falls flat or shows huge gains.

My money is on overall huge gains because I'm so sure of it in my mind. However, that's just  my mind.

I look forward to your Nobel Prize.


Lol

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 04, 2016, 01:52:00 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 01:13:25 AM

You said "the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber"

This means that without air molecules supporting it, the chamber would collapse?

It's self explanatory. No internal support by evacuation of matter means more external pressure and potential collapse unless a chamber is build strong enough to cater for the strength of the pump allowing expansion of internal matter to external..

OK so if a chamber is constructed with sufficient support and strength, could you theoretically remove ALL gas from a chamber without collapse?

No and I'll explain why with an analogy, so take it as that and try to understand what I'm getting at if you can. I know it's easy for me to explain and harder for those who are trying to grasp what I'm saying but try your best.

Ok, analogy. (Bearing in mind you've took notice of my previous posts).

Imagine a container full of Jack in the boxes. They are all inside closed lids. Basically compressed.
Outside of that container are lots of other Jack in the boxes pushing against the lid of the one's in the container.
The lid is closed. In between the two sets of Jack in the boxes, superman is stood and superman wants to allow the Jack in the boxes that are contained - to release.

Superman starts to push the external jack in the boxes away from the container and in doing so he's under severe pressure of them pushing back due to him exerting his energy in compressing them a little more.

As he does this, the Jack in the boxes in the container start to spring open into the void that superman has left in holding the external one's back.
As the first Jack in the box starts to open, it's followed by the next and the next that are all pushing into each other as they also start to spring open.
They will continue to do this until superman cannot hold the external one's back or until the external one's compress the container past it's strength.

However...and this is the key issue you want addressing. IF super man was able to keep pushing external pressure away and the container stayed strong, then it comes down to the Jack in the boxes that are left inside that container to push against each other until they full expand their springs.
The issue is, when they do expand their springs, they have nothing left to push against each other. They become dormant. Useless as anything other than a statue, or to make it simpler, they freeze.

Superman plays the evacuation pump in this story.
Ok, there's kid like version which is hopefully beneficial to many who are trying to grasp this stuff. No offence to you with me using this.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 04, 2016, 01:15:38 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 03, 2016, 11:40:03 PM

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

Explain this please? I am having a hard time understanding FET

It's all explained in this topic. Read it through.

I have read every single post in this thread, nobody has yet mentioned a firmament.

The problem I have with FE is it is SUPPOSED to be based upon empirical evidence, or evidence one can see and measure with one's own senses. Have you ever seen a firmament? How do you know it exists?

The same thing can be said about air molecules. Have you seen gas molecules expand in a low pressure system? Don't pretend like you have an electron microscope, so face facts. You have never measured molecules expanding in low pressure, so how can you possibly make such a claim?

You also have not explained the fact that air pressure is constant on all sides (including the bottom) so where does the downward force come from?

What is keeping all the air compressed at sea level? Shouldn't the atmosphere press against the firmament at the same pressure?

You keep referencing a stack. You explain it like a human pyramid, where the bottom row receives the most pressure. This problem is in a FE model  there is no gravity pulling the people in the pyramid to the bottom. What gives air downward force in the den pressure model?

Ok, so, experiment pitch for consideration from OP, as it seems to have Scepti's stamp of approval.

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.