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

Why is it that only air stacks?  And why not the particulates in the air?  You can clearly see that nothing is stacking.

Do particles in the air fall?
Ask yourself why they are in the air and why they fall after being in the air.

Everything stacks but changes in expansion and contraction alter the stack.

So how does the wind blow with stacked molecules?  Do stacked molecules become unstacked?  How do you get around stacked molecules?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2018, 05:33:46 AM

To this day only Jane has any kind of grasp on it. Others seem to grasp a little but lose the impetus to get past the brain busting idea of it.

I grasp it.  I've been there since you first started coming up with it.  Seriously, test me on any aspect.


You do realise someone can grasp it and think it's a load of old bollocks, don't you?

Of course. I've never seen you put any input into it. You simply call it whatever you call it.
Fair enough, carry on.

So how does the wind blow with stacked molecules?

By expansion and contraction, like I've just said.
High and low pressure is the end product of it.

Read up on the topic.

  Do stacked molecules become unstacked? 

They are always stacked but can always be disrupted.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 10:16:53 AM

So how does the wind blow with stacked molecules?

By expansion and contraction, like I've just said.
High and low pressure is the end product of it.

Read up on the topic.

I've read this topic and the other ones related to Denspressure.

Is the expansion and contraction unidirectional?

I've read this topic and the other ones related to Denspressure.

Is the expansion and contraction unidirectional?

This might help:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2093612#msg2093612

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 10:25:10 AM

I've read this topic and the other ones related to Denspressure.

Is the expansion and contraction unidirectional?

This might help:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2093612#msg2093612

It doesn't answer my question.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2018, 10:22:24 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 10:16:53 AM

So how does the wind blow with stacked molecules?

By expansion and contraction, like I've just said.
High and low pressure is the end product of it.

Read up on the topic.

I've read this topic and the other ones related to Denspressure.

Is the expansion and contraction unidirectional?

No, it's multidirectional.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 10:25:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2018, 10:22:24 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 10:16:53 AM

So how does the wind blow with stacked molecules?

By expansion and contraction, like I've just said.
High and low pressure is the end product of it.

Read up on the topic.

I've read this topic and the other ones related to Denspressure.

Is the expansion and contraction unidirectional?

No, it's multidirectional.

Ok so how does that work with a fan?  How is the air moving as a result of a fan with stacked molecules?  Is it still expansion and contraction? 

If there is expansion of molecules at a point, and that expansion is multidirectional, I should have air movement in each direction extending from that point.

Ok so how does that work with a fan?  How is the air moving as a result of a fan with stacked molecules?  Is it still expansion and contraction?   

The fan compresses the molecules to create a higher pressure which leaves a lower pressure or more expansion of matter which is immediately equalised causing a push or agitation of molecules which we obviously feel as wind.

If there is expansion of molecules at a point, and that expansion is multidirectional, I should have air movement in each direction extending from that point.

You do but the major air movement is being directed by the biggest energy....the fan blades.
The rest of the movement of molecules is minor ,vertically, assuming the fan blades are set to push horizontally like we generally do.

This probably won't help you grasp denpressure and you're in danger of skewing your own attempts to grasp it.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 02:23:44 PM

Ok so how does that work with a fan?  How is the air moving as a result of a fan with stacked molecules?  Is it still expansion and contraction?   

The fan compresses the molecules to create a higher pressure which leaves a lower pressure or more expansion of matter which is immediately equalised causing a push or agitation of molecules which we obviously feel as wind.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

If there is expansion of molecules at a point, and that expansion is multidirectional, I should have air movement in each direction extending from that point.

You do but the major air movement is being directed by the biggest energy....the fan blades.
The rest of the movement of molecules is minor ,vertically, assuming the fan blades are set to push horizontally like we generally do.

This probably won't help you grasp denpressure and you're in danger of skewing your own attempts to grasp it.

I'm not skewing anything. 

You clearly stated molecules stack as well as expand and contract.  For molecules to expand and contract, that would mean that molecules do not shift stacks.    If they could there would be no reason for them to expand and contract.  That being the case, I should get an equal amount of air flow in the opposite direction, either while the fan is running or immediately after fan is turned off.


If that isn't the case, please provide a diagram of how it would work.

I went back to thread one to refresh myself.
Didnt bother 2 thru now.


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.


So...in the current discussion of pressurization stacking air moecules or pulsing them or causing a longitudinal wave form caused by a fan would cause a force in the pressure direction?
Is that the gist?
A fan blows on you, you get denser and resist in the opposite direction of the wind?
This is what youre talking about when taking the above definition into account?
Seriously?

Side question...am i heavier or lighter, denser or less dense, when at the bottom of my swiming pool?

Keep in mind that scepti uses a different definition of "density" to everyone else.  You might want to check what his current definition is however, as it's shifted about a bit over time.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2018, 02:38:52 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 02:23:44 PM

Ok so how does that work with a fan?  How is the air moving as a result of a fan with stacked molecules?  Is it still expansion and contraction?   

The fan compresses the molecules to create a higher pressure which leaves a lower pressure or more expansion of matter which is immediately equalised causing a push or agitation of molecules which we obviously feel as wind.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

If there is expansion of molecules at a point, and that expansion is multidirectional, I should have air movement in each direction extending from that point.

You do but the major air movement is being directed by the biggest energy....the fan blades.
The rest of the movement of molecules is minor ,vertically, assuming the fan blades are set to push horizontally like we generally do.

This probably won't help you grasp denpressure and you're in danger of skewing your own attempts to grasp it.

I'm not skewing anything. 

You clearly stated molecules stack as well as expand and contract.  For molecules to expand and contract, that would mean that molecules do not shift stacks.    If they could there would be no reason for them to expand and contract.  That being the case, I should get an equal amount of air flow in the opposite direction, either while the fan is running or immediately after fan is turned off.


If that isn't the case, please provide a diagram of how it would work.

Let's do a thought process.

Imagine you are in a room that is crammed full of sponge balls, so crammed that they're half their fully expanded size. You are stood in the middle (for instance) and the fan is 5 feet from you (agains as an instance).
Now your dense body takes up that area of sponge balls.
The fan is also taking up it's own dense mass of sponge balls, even the blades create more solid barrier to them.

Apply energy (switch on the fan) to those balls and you start to compress some of those balls directly around those fan blades.
This has to create an effect of compressing sponge balls into sponge balls over distance but the effect diminishes depending on set energy applied to them.
For instance, the closer sponge balls will compress quite a bit but will start to expand back into the next ball which compresses that one, only a little less....and so on until the compression and expansion has levelled out for that energy force.

If you happen to be at the end of that compression and expansion, then you will feel that on your body as agitation/wind.

A pressurised system that has zero voids. Everything is always attached.

The stacking system needs much more explaining and requires people to actually take full on notice without simply going into denial of it just to dismiss my model, which is why I generally cease to stop explaining stuff.


Ok

Keep in mind that scepti uses a different definition of "density" to everyone else.  You might want to check what his current definition is however, as it's shifted about a bit over time.

It hasn't shifted. It's been explained differently but the premise stays the same.

A fan blows on you, you get denser and resist in the opposite direction of the wind?

Nope, you don't get denser.
Your body takes up it's own amount of dense mass of atmosphere and that atmosphere you displace is the amount that compresses back onto you, naturally.
This is how you get a man/woman made weight measurement.

Side question...am i heavier or lighter, denser or less dense, when at the bottom of my swiming pool?

Not an easy question to answer.
Alive you're full of air and dead you would take time to release the gases in your entire body.

Let's put it in a simpler way.
If you were dragged down slowly to a deeper depth then the water would be crushing you, right?
The more that water crushes you the more your body is squeezed of gases.
The more that happens, the more compact your body becomes.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 03:36:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2018, 02:38:52 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 27, 2018, 02:23:44 PM

Ok so how does that work with a fan?  How is the air moving as a result of a fan with stacked molecules?  Is it still expansion and contraction?   

The fan compresses the molecules to create a higher pressure which leaves a lower pressure or more expansion of matter which is immediately equalised causing a push or agitation of molecules which we obviously feel as wind.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

If there is expansion of molecules at a point, and that expansion is multidirectional, I should have air movement in each direction extending from that point.

You do but the major air movement is being directed by the biggest energy....the fan blades.
The rest of the movement of molecules is minor ,vertically, assuming the fan blades are set to push horizontally like we generally do.

This probably won't help you grasp denpressure and you're in danger of skewing your own attempts to grasp it.

I'm not skewing anything. 

You clearly stated molecules stack as well as expand and contract.  For molecules to expand and contract, that would mean that molecules do not shift stacks.    If they could there would be no reason for them to expand and contract.  That being the case, I should get an equal amount of air flow in the opposite direction, either while the fan is running or immediately after fan is turned off.


If that isn't the case, please provide a diagram of how it would work.

Let's do a thought process.

Imagine you are in a room that is crammed full of sponge balls, so crammed that they're half their fully expanded size. You are stood in the middle (for instance) and the fan is 5 feet from you (agains as an instance).
Now your dense body takes up that area of sponge balls.
The fan is also taking up it's own dense mass of sponge balls, even the blades create more solid barrier to them.

Apply energy (switch on the fan) to those balls and you start to compress some of those balls directly around those fan blades.
This has to create an effect of compressing sponge balls into sponge balls over distance but the effect diminishes depending on set energy applied to them.
For instance, the closer sponge balls will compress quite a bit but will start to expand back into the next ball which compresses that one, only a little less....and so on until the compression and expansion has levelled out for that energy force.

If you happen to be at the end of that compression and expansion, then you will feel that on your body as agitation/wind.

A pressurised system that has zero voids. Everything is always attached.

The stacking system needs much more explaining and requires people to actually take full on notice without simply going into denial of it just to dismiss my model, which is why I generally cease to stop explaining stuff.


Ok

Ok.  I'm missing something here.

I'll continue using your example of sponge balls and the room.  When the fan blades turn, what is creating the compression beyond the initial blade?  As the blade turns, the ball making direct contact with the blade would compress along the contour of the blade.  When the blade ends the ball would expand as there would no longer be applied compression until it meets the next blade.

You may get a little compression from the balls behind them but the level of compression would not carry on far as the balls are already partial compressed and would be applying expansion force in the opposite direction.

Ok.  I'm missing something here.

I'll continue using your example of sponge balls and the room.  When the fan blades turn, what is creating the compression beyond the initial blade?

he fan blade takes up its own dense mass of molecules as it turns. As it turns if moves from hitting and compressing one area of molecules but leaving behind it's own bladed dense mass of area that requires filling, which is obviously done immediately.
This creates a high pressure (compression and leaves a low pressure, expansion into the area the blade leaves.

  As the blade turns, the ball making direct contact with the blade would compress along the contour of the blade.  When the blade ends the ball would expand as there would no longer be applied compression until it meets the next blade.

It's a knock on effect.
Think of it like this: Imagine you have 10 person sized sponge balls placed horizontally in front of you  (using this as an instance for clarity).
At the end of that line is your friend.
You take a run at the first ball and squash it (compress it) and you notice the first ball has also compressed the second quite a bit and the second has compressed into the third and the third has compressed into the fourth.
At some point the compression becomes negligible as it becomes less and less a compression further down the line.
Your friend might say he felt nothing...or he could feel that force if you applied more energy to complete the compression.
As you would be doing this you would have sponge balls around you that were compressed against you but if you run away from them you allow them to decompress and take the place of the area your body (dense mass) was standing in, which creates a push back onto you as you push in front.

You may get a little compression from the balls behind them but the level of compression would not carry on far as the balls are already partial compressed and would be applying expansion force in the opposite direction.

It would if you applied enough energy.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 28, 2018, 07:33:34 AM

Ok.  I'm missing something here.

I'll continue using your example of sponge balls and the room.  When the fan blades turn, what is creating the compression beyond the initial blade?

he fan blade takes up its own dense mass of molecules as it turns. As it turns if moves from hitting and compressing one area of molecules but leaving behind it's own bladed dense mass of area that requires filling, which is obviously done immediately.
This creates a high pressure (compression and leaves a low pressure, expansion into the area the blade leaves.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

  As the blade turns, the ball making direct contact with the blade would compress along the contour of the blade.  When the blade ends the ball would expand as there would no longer be applied compression until it meets the next blade.

It's a knock on effect.
Think of it like this: Imagine you have 10 person sized sponge balls placed horizontally in front of you  (using this as an instance for clarity).
At the end of that line is your friend.
You take a run at the first ball and squash it (compress it) and you notice the first ball has also compressed the second quite a bit and the second has compressed into the third and the third has compressed into the fourth.
At some point the compression becomes negligible as it becomes less and less a compression further down the line.
Your friend might say he felt nothing...or he could feel that force if you applied more energy to complete the compression.
As you would be doing this you would have sponge balls around you that were compressed against you but if you run away from them you allow them to decompress and take the place of the area your body (dense mass) was standing in, which creates a push back onto you as you push in front.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

You may get a little compression from the balls behind them but the level of compression would not carry on far as the balls are already partial compressed and would be applying expansion force in the opposite direction.

It would if you applied enough energy.

I don't think you are getting what I'm saying with the fan blade.

Take two large sponges and place them on top of each other under some compression, like under a book. The compression shouldn't flatten out the sponges, but just be enough to put some compression on them.  Insert your finger between them.  Push your finger up or down, the one sponge will contract further while the one expands into the now void where your finger was.  Now run you finger between the sponges.  The sponges will compress as you move your finger and expand once your finger moves away.  You can move your finger as fast as you want and the sponges will still fill the void.

The finger is the fan.

Do you see the problem?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 07:53:43 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 28, 2018, 07:33:34 AM

Ok.  I'm missing something here.

I'll continue using your example of sponge balls and the room.  When the fan blades turn, what is creating the compression beyond the initial blade?

he fan blade takes up its own dense mass of molecules as it turns. As it turns if moves from hitting and compressing one area of molecules but leaving behind it's own bladed dense mass of area that requires filling, which is obviously done immediately.
This creates a high pressure (compression and leaves a low pressure, expansion into the area the blade leaves.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

  As the blade turns, the ball making direct contact with the blade would compress along the contour of the blade.  When the blade ends the ball would expand as there would no longer be applied compression until it meets the next blade.

It's a knock on effect.
Think of it like this: Imagine you have 10 person sized sponge balls placed horizontally in front of you  (using this as an instance for clarity).
At the end of that line is your friend.
You take a run at the first ball and squash it (compress it) and you notice the first ball has also compressed the second quite a bit and the second has compressed into the third and the third has compressed into the fourth.
At some point the compression becomes negligible as it becomes less and less a compression further down the line.
Your friend might say he felt nothing...or he could feel that force if you applied more energy to complete the compression.
As you would be doing this you would have sponge balls around you that were compressed against you but if you run away from them you allow them to decompress and take the place of the area your body (dense mass) was standing in, which creates a push back onto you as you push in front.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

You may get a little compression from the balls behind them but the level of compression would not carry on far as the balls are already partial compressed and would be applying expansion force in the opposite direction.

It would if you applied enough energy.

I don't think you are getting what I'm saying with the fan blade.

Take two large sponges and place them on top of each other under some compression, like under a book. The compression shouldn't flatten out the sponges, but just be enough to put some compression on them.  Insert your finger between them.  Push your finger up or down, the one sponge will contract further while the one expands into the now void where your finger was.  Now run you finger between the sponges.  The sponges will compress as you move your finger and expand once your finger moves away.  You can move your finger as fast as you want and the sponges will still fill the void.

The finger is the fan.

Do you see the problem?

Yes if you go by using 2 sponges in the way you are using them in a sort of cancelling out mode.
But that's not the actual case.
If the fan blade was completely flat your case is solid. It would more or less create that.
But we both know fan blades are not like that, right?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 28, 2018, 01:59:07 AM

Keep in mind that scepti uses a different definition of "density" to everyone else.  You might want to check what his current definition is however, as it's shifted about a bit over time.

It hasn't shifted. It's been explained differently but the premise stays the same.

OK, but could you give your current definition of density, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 02:27:06 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 28, 2018, 01:59:07 AM

Keep in mind that scepti uses a different definition of "density" to everyone else.  You might want to check what his current definition is however, as it's shifted about a bit over time.

It hasn't shifted. It's been explained differently but the premise stays the same.

OK, but could you give your current definition of density, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.

The ability of an object/matter to displace atmospheric pressure or pressure of molecules.

The ability of an object/matter to displace atmospheric pressure or pressure of molecules.

So the Lithium (1 m³ has a mass of 534 kg) has the same density as Osmium (1 m³ has a mass of 22,590 kg).
Yes, I know, I'm not sufficiently open minded to let all my brains run out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 10:02:59 AM

The ability of an object/matter to displace atmospheric pressure or pressure of molecules.

So the Lithium (1 m³ has a mass of 534 kg) has the same density as Osmium (1 m³ has a mass of 22,590 kg).
Yes, I know, I'm not sufficiently open minded to let all my brains run out.

Then they don't have the same density. But you're entitled to accept they have.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 28, 2018, 09:30:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 10:02:59 AM

The ability of an object/matter to displace atmospheric pressure or pressure of molecules.

So then Lithium (1 m³ has a mass of 534 kg) has the same density as Osmium (1 m³ has a mass of 22,590 kg)?
Yes, I know, I'm not sufficiently open minded to let all my brains run out.

Then they don't have the same density. But you're entitled to accept they have.

Of course they don't have the same density but one cubic metre of each does displace exactly one cubic metre of air.
At sea level that one cubic metre of air has a mass of 1.224 kg.

If you expect anybody to look sympathetically at your denpressure ideas you really should make an effort to used the accepted definitions for words.

If you expect anybody to look sympathetically at your denpressure ideas you really should make an effort to used the accepted definitions for words.

I'd suggest understanding what you're talking about instead.

Scepti's underlying physics are different, there is no way to directly transfer across the RE definition of density over to denpressure.

The basic gist can be though, the amount of 'stuff' within a volume, which translates to how well it displaces air when you remember the role porousness plays in his model. Your two examples wouldn't share a density under the physics of denpressure because, again, under the model we're actually talking about they displace different amounts of air.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 29, 2018, 02:06:38 AM

If you expect anybody to look sympathetically at your denpressure ideas you really should make an effort to used the accepted definitions for words.

I'd suggest understanding what you're talking about instead.

I'd respectfully suggest that you read what I actually said instead of what you think I said.
The part you criticise was no more that a suggestion as to word usage and I still believe that is sound advice.

Scepti's underlying physics are different, there is no way to directly transfer across the RE definition of density over to denpressure.

OK, then he should not have used the word "density" for a completely different concept especially when "density" is still required with its conventional meaning.

But since you raised the issue, the accepted rules of physics were not hypothesised but we're discovered by many painstaking experiments.
So a person is not free to simply simply hypothesise a "new physics" without performing similar experiments to justify his hypotheses.
If Sceppy fails to do this he cannot expect people to take his ideas seriously.

The basic gist can be though, the amount of 'stuff' within a volume, which translates to how well it displaces air when you remember the role porousness plays in his model. Your two examples wouldn't share a density under the physics of denpressure because, again, under the model we're actually talking about they displace different amounts of air.

I'm not going to go into what is wrong with his model and it was not my intention in that post to do that.

Sure, but my whole point is that he should never have used the word "density" for this new idea.
He does that same redefinition of words in many cases and I'm sure it causes many people to refuse to even entertain his ideas.

Surely even you can see that!

Then again you raise the point that "under the model we're actually talking about they displace different amounts of air" and that again is simply one his hypotheses that have never been justified.

But the part of my post that you criticised contained none of that. It was just advice on choosing different words to help others understand his ideas.

Scepti's underlying physics are different, there is no way to directly transfer across the RE definition of density over to denpressure.

Maybe he should stop using the well understood word "density" to describe a completely different concept?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 28, 2018, 09:12:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 02:27:06 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 28, 2018, 01:59:07 AM

Keep in mind that scepti uses a different definition of "density" to everyone else.  You might want to check what his current definition is however, as it's shifted about a bit over time.

It hasn't shifted. It's been explained differently but the premise stays the same.

OK, but could you give your current definition of density, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.

The ability of an object/matter to displace atmospheric pressure or pressure of molecules.

How would you measure this, and can you give some examples of the density of common objects and/or materials?