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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 102995 Views
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3240 on: January 18, 2019, 02:19:31 PM »
It's in the stack above its own mass.It's displacing it.
No more than it is in the stack below its own mass.

If you examine it you have a stack something like this (= is air, X is object)
==========
==========
==========
==========
==========
==========

====x=====
===xxx====
====x=====
==========
==========
==========


You have the stack above in red, which it it is only just touching.
You have the stack below in green, which it is only just touching.
You then have the small stack it is actually inside.
You have no justification for why it is pushing into the top, but not the bottom.
Any statement you make for the stack above can apply equally to the stack below.

In the container you are not stacking naturally. You are forcing a compression by trapping it inside the container. Therefore there is no natural stacking. It uniform, like you say.
With the Earth dome there is natural stacking and it isn't uniform.
Wrong again.
Even inside a container, there is still "stacking" if you just take that to be a pressure gradient. But good job contradicting yourself.

Those who are willing to understand it will be able to piece it together much quicker than those who try to complicate the issue.
No, it seems those willing to just baseless accept it will "piece things together" much quicker. Those who try to understand it seem to have it all fall apart as it literally makes no sense.

The atmosphere is still stacked inside the container
But before you said there was no natural stacking and that inside it is uniform.

I didn't see you mention pressurising a container to suspend something on a spring. Did you mention that or would you like to amend your question?
I'm pretty sure he was intentionally hiding that to cause to contradict yourself.
You have a container which is pressurised which you claim has a uniform atmosphere inside. But then when asking about why an object would fall you completely reject that uniform atmosphere and instead revert back to it being stacked.
Good job showing your dishonesty and blatant disregard for truth and consistency.

I've never hung any spring from a container with a mass on it and pressurised the container.
Well that would be a good example of an experiment you can try to test your model.
Spoiler alert: Just like all experiments it shows your model to be garbage.
The object still falls.
It doesn't matter if the container is at ambient pressure, and increased pressure or a reduced pressure, objects still fall. The only exception are rigid gas filled balloons which can rise under some pressures and sink under lower pressures.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3241 on: January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3242 on: January 18, 2019, 04:05:37 PM »
It's in the stack above its own mass.It's displacing it.
No more than it is in the stack below its own mass.

If you examine it you have a stack something like this (= is air, X is object)
==========
==========
==========
==========
==========
==========

====x=====
===xxx====
====x=====
==========
==========
==========


You have the stack above in red, which it it is only just touching.
You have the stack below in green, which it is only just touching.
You then have the small stack it is actually inside.
You have no justification for why it is pushing into the top, but not the bottom.
Any statement you make for the stack above can apply equally to the stack below.

You need to understand the stacking and you clearly do not judging by the diagram.
There's nothing only just touching. It's all under pressure.
The stack is a push on push or push into resistance to push from the BOTTOM up.

I already did a crude diagram so how come you manage to come to this?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3243 on: January 18, 2019, 04:44:37 PM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3244 on: January 18, 2019, 04:52:09 PM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.
I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 4994
  • I abuse wise
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3245 on: January 18, 2019, 11:02:44 PM »
I personally enjoyed scepti saying that Pressure inside a sealed container equalizes.  A domed earth is a sealed container.  If it isn't then it can't be a domed earth.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3246 on: January 19, 2019, 12:54:37 AM »
I personally enjoyed scepti saying that Pressure inside a sealed container equalizes.  A domed earth is a sealed container.  If it isn't then it can't be a domed earth.
It is sealed in a way but it's not sealed in the way you think, hence the natural stacking that creates it.

The difference between a man made pressure forced into a container and the natural dome is, the natural dome is not subject to a pressure trying to push the dome out. It is the end product of a stacking system where the push energy is from below and the resistance to push as the stack builds.



*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3247 on: January 19, 2019, 01:25:44 AM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.
I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3248 on: January 19, 2019, 01:40:50 AM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.
I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.
So all mass is 6 jugs?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3249 on: January 19, 2019, 02:09:29 AM »
You need to understand the stacking and you clearly do not judging by the diagram.
No, I clearly do and am pointing out the massive flaw in your reasoning.

There's nothing only just touching. It's all under pressure.
Not according to you.
If it was all under pressure then the stack below the object would be pushing up into it.
So thanks for contradicting yourself, AGAIN.

The stack is a push on push or push into resistance to push from the BOTTOM up.
So it pushes objects upwards, not down, completely contradicting reality, and all your prior claims regarding it being pushed down.

Again, you have provided no justification for why it only magically pushes into the stack above rather than the stack below as well.
All "justifications" you have work equally well for both, and thus don't work at all to explain why it is pushed down.

So all mass is 6 jugs?
No, jugs is the unit, kind of like the kg.
Meanwhile you are still trying to figure out what 6 means.

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3250 on: January 19, 2019, 02:10:19 AM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.
I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.
So all mass is 6 jugs?

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3251 on: January 19, 2019, 02:15:03 AM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.
I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.
So all mass is 6 jugs?

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.
So we now all agree that Sceptis theories are correct and he should publish a paper for the wider scientific community?

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3252 on: January 19, 2019, 02:21:21 AM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.
I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.
So all mass is 6 jugs?

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.
So we now all agree that Sceptis theories are correct and he should publish a paper for the wider scientific community?

Seems like the appropriate next step.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3253 on: January 19, 2019, 02:26:00 AM »
You need to understand the stacking and you clearly do not judging by the diagram.
No, I clearly do and am pointing out the massive flaw in your reasoning.
You clearly don't.
And there's no massive flaw except the one you think there is by your inability to understand what I'm saying.

Quote from: JackBlack
There's nothing only just touching. It's all under pressure.
Not according to you.
If it was all under pressure then the stack below the object would be pushing up into it.
So thanks for contradicting yourself, AGAIN.
The stack below doesn't have to push into it. The object is suspended.
The molecular stack below is still a push on push with itself and the very top of that stack is merely connected to the underside of the object with the top molecules of that particular stack merely touches but applies little to no resistance to the underside of the object due to that suspension.

You simply have no clue.


Quote from: JackBlack
The stack is a push on push or push into resistance to push from the BOTTOM up.
So it pushes objects upwards, not down, completely contradicting reality, and all your prior claims regarding it being pushed down.
Nope.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, you have provided no justification for why it only magically pushes into the stack above rather than the stack below as well.
All "justifications" you have work equally well for both, and thus don't work at all to explain why it is pushed down.


I've provided plenty but you seem to grasp a little bit then go and destroy anything you did grasp by taking a step back.
That's your issue, not mine.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3254 on: January 19, 2019, 02:27:22 AM »


If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.
So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3255 on: January 19, 2019, 02:31:36 AM »


If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.
So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

If you can redefine the meaning/measurement of weight, why can't others redefine the meaning/measurement of mass?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3256 on: January 19, 2019, 02:33:01 AM »
You clearly don't.
You dismissing me as not understand to cover up the flaws doesn't magically make them not exist.
I understand what you are saying and realise it makes no sense.
Anyone reading can see I understand.

The stack below doesn't have to push into it. The object is suspended.
It doesn't matter if it "has to" or not. If the air is pressurised and against the object, it will push into it.
The only way for it to not push into it is for the air to have 0 pressure, which requires a perfect vacuum.

We can also easily show this in various ways.
A simple one is a rigid box, with a membrane on the bottom instead of a solid face. With a low pressure inside, the atmosphere below pushes the membrane in.

Also the only reason it would need to be suspended in the first place is to stop it getting pushed down, which makes it entirely circular reasoning.
That is why I start with an object in mid air, not held up by anything.

The molecular stack below is still a push on push with itself and the very top of that stack is merely connected to the underside of the object with the top molecules of that particular stack merely touches but applies little to no resistance to the underside of the object due to that suspension.
Again WHY???
Why does the stack below do this but the stack above pushes it down? IT MAKES NO SENSE!


I've provided plenty but you seem to grasp a little bit then go and destroy anything you did grasp by taking a step back.
That's your issue, not mine.
No, it is entirely your issue.
I do understand. I'm not taking any steps back. I am just not going to accept complete nonsense without any justification.
Again, every single "justification" you have provided either doesn't work at all, or works equally for the stack above and below.

You are just repeatedly dismissing me to pretend your model works.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3257 on: January 19, 2019, 03:23:30 AM »


If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.
So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

If you can redefine the meaning/measurement of weight, why can't others redefine the meaning/measurement of mass?
You can if you can measure it. The problem is, you need to add gravity into it and you simply can't do it.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3258 on: January 19, 2019, 07:06:58 AM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.
I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

I did.
It was mentioned several times.
The measurement is the arbitrary unit of measure we "agree" upon is 1 jug of water.

Again
How do you buy shoes?
Are you a size 9, 10.
Or do you hold up your foot and say "i need a shoe that my foot can occupy.
We dont know it, because measurements dont exist.
But heres my foot and i need a shoe."

Have you heard of imperial system (lb, in, yards, btu etc).
How about metric (kg, mm, kW)?

Quit dodging and Get to your point pelase.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3259 on: January 19, 2019, 07:08:34 AM »
Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.
I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.
So all mass is 6 jugs?

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

Well no.
In my example the specific rock was 6 jugs.
All mass is not 6 jugs.
Just that rock.
1 unit of measure was 1 jug.
Arbitraryily chosen as the standard.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3260 on: January 19, 2019, 07:55:58 AM »


If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.
So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

Your part is over?
You didnt do anything but ask a stupid question that went no where.

You claimedthere was a method so i answered.
Like i said at initial - quit trolling.
Now we see you trolled and had no point.

Good job proving once again how full of sht you are.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3261 on: January 19, 2019, 08:03:37 AM »


If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.
So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

If you can redefine the meaning/measurement of weight, why can't others redefine the meaning/measurement of mass?
You can if you can measure it. The problem is, you need to add gravity into it and you simply can't do it.

No gravity.
Gravity doesnt exist.
"PREDICTIVE FALL".
denp has been shown to push objects down at a predticive rate of ~9.8m/s^2 in air.
Whats that got to do with anything?
Not a problem.

In submerged water things weigh differently because they dont fall at 9.8m/s^2.
The reason not important.

So whats your point?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3262 on: January 19, 2019, 08:11:28 AM »
You need to understand the stacking and you clearly do not judging by the diagram.
No, I clearly do and am pointing out the massive flaw in your reasoning.
You clearly don't.
And there's no massive flaw except the one you think there is by your inability to understand what I'm saying.

Quote from: JackBlack
There's nothing only just touching. It's all under pressure.
Not according to you.
If it was all under pressure then the stack below the object would be pushing up into it.
So thanks for contradicting yourself, AGAIN.
The stack below doesn't have to push into it. The object is suspended.
The molecular stack below is still a push on push with itself and the very top of that stack is merely connected to the underside of the object with the top molecules of that particular stack merely touches but applies little to no resistance to the underside of the object due to that suspension.

You simply have no clue.


Quote from: JackBlack
The stack is a push on push or push into resistance to push from the BOTTOM up.
So it pushes objects upwards, not down, completely contradicting reality, and all your prior claims regarding it being pushed down.
Nope.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, you have provided no justification for why it only magically pushes into the stack above rather than the stack below as well.
All "justifications" you have work equally well for both, and thus don't work at all to explain why it is pushed down.


I've provided plenty but you seem to grasp a little bit then go and destroy anything you did grasp by taking a step back.
That's your issue, not mine.

We do understand what youre saying (in theory...your use of language does soemtimes confuse but thats because you insist on speaking sceptinese).

Heres a simple and basic anaolgy.
Your theory is that oranges grapefruits and limes and limes are fruit.
But you state oranges are not citrus because they are sweet.
We say sweetness has no bearing.
You keep insisting.
We keep insisting back.
And around and around we go.
We understand its sweet.
We understand the point your trying to make.

YOU NOT understanding that fluid pressure flows all around an object and isnt directional is the issue.
Nice theory though but we disproved it.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 4994
  • I abuse wise
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3263 on: January 19, 2019, 08:34:51 AM »
I personally enjoyed scepti saying that Pressure inside a sealed container equalizes.  A domed earth is a sealed container.  If it isn't then it can't be a domed earth.
It is sealed in a way but it's not sealed in the way you think, hence the natural stacking that creates it.

The difference between a man made pressure forced into a container and the natural dome is, the natural dome is not subject to a pressure trying to push the dome out. It is the end product of a stacking system where the push energy is from below and the resistance to push as the stack builds.

The pressure inside a sealed container is equal.

A domed earth is a sealed container.

There is no, it is, but it's a natural sealed container, so it's different.

A sealed container is a sealed container.

Pressure inside one sealed container will function exactly the same as any other sealed container.  It doesn't magically change.

If it does, you need to explain why it does.  Baseless assertions don't prove anything.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3264 on: January 19, 2019, 09:42:31 AM »



Quote from: JackBlack
The stack below doesn't have to push into it. The object is suspended.
It doesn't matter if it "has to" or not. If the air is pressurised and against the object, it will push into it.
The only way for it to not push into it is for the air to have 0 pressure, which requires a perfect vacuum.
We can also easily show this in various ways.
A simple one is a rigid box, with a membrane on the bottom instead of a solid face. With a low pressure inside, the atmosphere below pushes the membrane in.

I noticed how you said a low pressure inside.

You don't know how it all works. You know a little, bit but then destroy it by putting stuff like this, as if it scuppers what I'm telling you. It actually aids in what I'm telling you but you don't realise it.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 10:21:46 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3265 on: January 19, 2019, 09:50:54 AM »
i just thought of this.

jackB keeps insisting the air below will stack up.

Scepti says no it doesn't based on magic.

Sideways stacking (pretty girls too for bonus).
 

Upside down stacking.
 

looks like jack was right.
should we add suction cups to your list of fake news?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3266 on: January 19, 2019, 10:20:13 AM »


The pressure inside a sealed container is equal.

A domed earth is a sealed container.

There is no, it is, but it's a natural sealed container, so it's different.

A sealed container is a sealed container.

Pressure inside one sealed container will function exactly the same as any other sealed container.  It doesn't magically change.

If it does, you need to explain why it does.  Baseless assertions don't prove anything.
Telling me what my model is, is fine. Just make sure you know what you're telling me.

You don't understand my model. If you did you wouldn't be saying what you've said.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3267 on: January 19, 2019, 10:24:10 AM »
i just thought of this.

jackB keeps insisting the air below will stack up.

Scepti says no it doesn't based on magic.

Sideways stacking (pretty girls too for bonus).
 

Upside down stacking.
 

looks like jack was right.
should we add suction cups to your list of fake news?
How about understanding what's happening before you jump in saying what you're saying.
Low pressure is the key to this.

You're jumping from one issue to another and trying to marry them up as one. It doesn't work like that.
You're wrong and so is Jackblack.

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3268 on: January 19, 2019, 12:07:50 PM »
I noticed how you said a low pressure inside.
Yes, because that provides a very clear example, where it is pushed up by the atmosphere. It allows a very simple visual indication.
If the atmosphere didn't push it up, its pressure wouldn't matter and the membrane wouldn't curve up into the object.

The only way for the membrane to curve up into the container from the bottom is if the pressure below is pushing up, or if you instead ditch your prior claims and have the low pressure inside magically suck it up.

You don't know how it all works.
That's right. I know it doesn't work.
Do you know one thing which really helps show that?
You repeatedly insulting me and claiming I don't understand rather than providing an actual answer to the issues raised.
Then there is you repeatedly just dismissing things as "other issues" without providing any justification for why it is.

You're jumping from one issue to another
No, we aren't.
The issue is the atmosphere below an object pushing into it, which would push it up if there is force balancing it.
This was initially brought up in regards to objects falling, but the key issue, the atmosphere pushing up from below an object, still applies here.
In my example, the membrane is clearly being pushed up by the atmosphere. In the cup example the same applies, with the sheet (and by extension the water) being pushed up by the atmosphere below. Although in this case one could argue it is just not being pushed down, but the sheet is still exposed to a large region of the atmosphere above and thus should still be pushed down. We can also extend the test by removing the sheet and having the water pour out of the glass, showing that was clearly being pushed down as well (even though that makes no sense in your model).

Now how about you address the issues?
Why do things fall?
We know it isn't simply because they exist in the atmosphere. This is because the atmosphere pushes from all sides, including from below as shown in my membrane example.
As the pressure mostly equalises that will result in no significant force.
We know it isn't the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere as that has a higher pressure below the object and thus pushes it upwards.
We know it isn't based upon moving the object as that would push it back, now down.

So it sure seems like the air isn't what is causing things to fall.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 12:13:16 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3269 on: January 19, 2019, 12:40:17 PM »
I noticed how you said a low pressure inside.
Yes, because that provides a very clear example, where it is pushed up by the atmosphere. It allows a very simple visual indication.
If the atmosphere didn't push it up, its pressure wouldn't matter and the membrane wouldn't curve up into the object.

The only way for the membrane to curve up into the container from the bottom is if the pressure below is pushing up, or if you instead ditch your prior claims and have the low pressure inside magically suck it up.

You don't know how it all works.
That's right. I know it doesn't work.
Do you know one thing which really helps show that?
You repeatedly insulting me and claiming I don't understand rather than providing an actual answer to the issues raised.
Then there is you repeatedly just dismissing things as "other issues" without providing any justification for why it is.

You're jumping from one issue to another
No, we aren't.
The issue is the atmosphere below an object pushing into it, which would push it up if there is force balancing it.
This was initially brought up in regards to objects falling, but the key issue, the atmosphere pushing up from below an object, still applies here.
In my example, the membrane is clearly being pushed up by the atmosphere. In the cup example the same applies, with the sheet (and by extension the water) being pushed up by the atmosphere below. Although in this case one could argue it is just not being pushed down, but the sheet is still exposed to a large region of the atmosphere above and thus should still be pushed down. We can also extend the test by removing the sheet and having the water pour out of the glass, showing that was clearly being pushed down as well (even though that makes no sense in your model).

Now how about you address the issues?
Why do things fall?
We know it isn't simply because they exist in the atmosphere. This is because the atmosphere pushes from all sides, including from below as shown in my membrane example.
As the pressure mostly equalises that will result in no significant force.
We know it isn't the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere as that has a higher pressure below the object and thus pushes it upwards.
We know it isn't based upon moving the object as that would push it back, now down.

So it sure seems like the air isn't what is causing things to fall.

In short... youre wrong.
Ahah

Scepti.
Ok this maybe too advanced for you
How about you finish your thought and why im on an island weighing rocks with jugs of water.