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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 102991 Views
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3270 on: January 19, 2019, 12:42:03 PM »
And to detract from my very importatn jug vs rock question...

If lower air doesnt stack, what is the cause for a feather to flutter?


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3271 on: January 19, 2019, 02:35:57 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.
First of all I wasn't talking about a lowered pressure in a box with a membrane on the bottom but you changed it to that because you want to try and show that the stack pushes up.

Well think about what you've done to the stack by evacuating atmospheric pressure from the box that is suspended with the membrane laying on the stack.
You've created a difference in pressure from above the stack in side that box.
You have allowed the stack to expand at that point which is why the membrane is pushed up.

You try to make out I'm contradicting but I'm not. It's you changing the goal posts without you even understanding what you're actually doing.

The fact you mention suck is a clear indication that you move one step forward and one step back.








?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3272 on: January 19, 2019, 02:37:58 PM »
And to detract from my very importatn jug vs rock question...

If lower air doesnt stack, what is the cause for a feather to flutter?
What do you mean, if lower air doesn't stack? Who said lower air doesn't stack?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3273 on: January 19, 2019, 03:10:36 PM »
And to detract from my very importatn jug vs rock question...

If lower air doesnt stack, what is the cause for a feather to flutter?
What do you mean, if lower air doesn't stack? Who said lower air doesn't stack?

Holysht
YOU DID!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3274 on: January 19, 2019, 03:13:17 PM »
And to detract from my very importatn jug vs rock question...

If lower air doesnt stack, what is the cause for a feather to flutter?
What do you mean, if lower air doesn't stack? Who said lower air doesn't stack?

Holysht
YOU DID!
No I didn't. Go and find where I said it.

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3275 on: January 19, 2019, 03:20:04 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.
First of all I wasn't talking about a lowered pressure in a box with a membrane on the bottom but you changed it to that because you want to try and show that the stack pushes up.

Well think about what you've done to the stack by evacuating atmospheric pressure from the box that is suspended with the membrane laying on the stack.
You've created a difference in pressure from above the stack in side that box.
You have allowed the stack to expand at that point which is why the membrane is pushed up.

You try to make out I'm contradicting but I'm not. It's you changing the goal posts without you even understanding what you're actually doing.

The fact you mention suck is a clear indication that you move one step forward and one step back.

In the cup and card paper example there was no evacuation.
No unstacking.
No mechanical pumping of air.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3276 on: January 19, 2019, 03:24:12 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.
First of all I wasn't talking about a lowered pressure in a box with a membrane on the bottom but you changed it to that because you want to try and show that the stack pushes up.

Well think about what you've done to the stack by evacuating atmospheric pressure from the box that is suspended with the membrane laying on the stack.
You've created a difference in pressure from above the stack in side that box.
You have allowed the stack to expand at that point which is why the membrane is pushed up.

You try to make out I'm contradicting but I'm not. It's you changing the goal posts without you even understanding what you're actually doing.

The fact you mention suck is a clear indication that you move one step forward and one step back.

In the cup and card paper example there was no evacuation.
No unstacking.
No mechanical pumping of air.
What do you think was in that cup apart from water?
It was a small amount of atmosphere shielded by the bottom of the cup from the atmospheric push from above.
This meant that the small amount of atmosphere inside the cup...trapped, was no match to push out the water from that cup against the resistance of the atmosphere below....hence why the card stayed attached to the upturned cup of water.


Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3277 on: January 19, 2019, 03:47:48 PM »
First of all I wasn't talking about a lowered pressure in a box with a membrane on the bottom but you changed it to that because you want to try and show that the stack pushes up.
No, not trying, succeeding.
Again, the membrane clearly shows the lower stack pushes up.

Stop trying to have completely different physics for different situations.
If it can magically push up with a lower pressure inside but it magically doesn't when it is at the same pressure inside, then you have a massive inconsistency in your model.

Well think about what you've done to the stack by evacuating atmospheric pressure from the box that is suspended with the membrane laying on the stack.
Absolutely nothing, because remember, you can't suck. Vacuums don't suck. Lower pressures don't suck. All that you can do is have the air push.
So either there is no pushing in the first place and thus no reason for the membrane to go up, or the air below was pushing up the entire time.

Also, as demonstrated by other experiments, you don't need to artificially create any pressure difference.

You try to make out I'm contradicting but I'm not. It's you changing the goal posts without you even understanding what you're actually doing.
No, it is me showing situations where you resort to contradicting yourself.
I'm not changing the goal posts at all. For this particular case the goalposts have remained the same.
It is quite simple, DOES THE STACK BELOW PUSH UP?
If yes, then it pushes up and your explanation for why things fall fails yet again.
If no, then you have no explanation for why the membrane is pushed up.

Instead you are trying to say in one situation it does, but in another it does not. That is a contradiction.
You have no justification for why it magically behaves completely differently.
The only way attempt at a justification just contradicts more of what you have said.

The fact you mention suck is a clear indication that you move one step forward and one step back.
Really? The fact that I mention suck to indicate that you can't have the lower pressure inside suck and thus it can't be the cause means I have taken a step back? Just how does that work?
Again you are resorting to just insulting me rather than addressing the massive flaws in your model.

It was a small amount of atmosphere shielded by the bottom of the cup from the atmospheric push from above.
This meant that the small amount of atmosphere inside the cup...trapped, was no match to push out the water from that cup against the resistance of the atmosphere below....hence why the card stayed attached to the upturned cup of water.
No, that doesn't work.
If that was the case, you could remove the card and have the water stay, but it doesn't.
More importantly, the card extended well beyond the edge of the glass. That should be plenty to push it down.

Also, if there is no push from below, just what is there to overcome?
You claim it is pushed from above with no push from below. If that is the case then it should fall. It is only if you have a push from below that it wont.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3278 on: January 19, 2019, 04:45:27 PM »
The same cupwatercard experiment can be done with zero air in the cup.
Try it.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3279 on: January 19, 2019, 04:49:19 PM »
And to detract from my very importatn jug vs rock question...

If lower air doesnt stack, what is the cause for a feather to flutter?

Still waiting that revelation of why denp weighs rocks with jugs is important.

You said you had a point.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3280 on: January 19, 2019, 10:30:22 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
I've never hung any spring from a container with a mass on it and pressurised the container.

What do I think would happen?
It depends on the object and the container itself I suppose.

What would happen to a near perfectly round object inside a near perfectly spherical container under forced pressurisation?

Does it suspend in the middle of it?

sure!

Hi Sceptimatic,

Did you get around to figuring out what would happen here in your model?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3281 on: January 20, 2019, 01:21:20 AM »
First of all I wasn't talking about a lowered pressure in a box with a membrane on the bottom but you changed it to that because you want to try and show that the stack pushes up.
No, not trying, succeeding.
Again, the membrane clearly shows the lower stack pushes up.

Stop trying to have completely different physics for different situations.
If it can magically push up with a lower pressure inside but it magically doesn't when it is at the same pressure inside, then you have a massive inconsistency in your model.
If the suspended box is at the same pressure as the atmosphere with the membrane laying on top of the stack then the stack acts as a resistance to that membrane whilst the atmosphere inside the box is simply equal to that resistance underneath. Result?....no push.

Evacuate atmosphere from that suspended   box and you add that pressure to the atmosphere.
The stack below that the membrane is resting on is now able to expand by the compression release it was under, below.
The stack below is still a push on push and is compressed and the atmosphere above generally keeps that compression by overall stack.
Put something like the box and membrane in between and suspended shuts off that atmospheric compression above to below and replaces it with the box structure, plus atmosphere in it.
Lower that atmosphere inside and you create the pressure outside by what you lowered from inside that box...extra.
This has to equalise from where it came from and it does so by the understack being allowed to decompress into the box and pushing in the membrane.

In normal circumstances of equalisation all the stack would do is resist. You could argue that resist is still a push up and it is...but it isn't a pressure push up like you think it is., as in equal to the above and the sides.
It's just resisting the suspended box, it is not trying to push it up because that resistance is merely the top of the stack of molecules.


Quote from: JackBlack
Well think about what you've done to the stack by evacuating atmospheric pressure from the box that is suspended with the membrane laying on the stack.
Absolutely nothing, because remember, you can't suck. Vacuums don't suck. Lower pressures don't suck. All that you can do is have the air push.
You seem to mention suck. It doesn't exist in reality. It's just a word to describe what people think is a pull, which also doesn't exist except to be a word that describes a push but used for ease of explaining force of action.

Quote from: JackBlack
So either there is no pushing in the first place and thus no reason for the membrane to go up, or the air below was pushing up the entire time.
Also, as demonstrated by other experiments, you don't need to artificially create any pressure difference.
You create the push by lowering the pressure inside the box and allowing the stack to decompress at that point under the membrane.
Think about it.


Quote from: JackBlack
You try to make out I'm contradicting but I'm not. It's you changing the goal posts without you even understanding what you're actually doing.
No, it is me showing situations where you resort to contradicting yourself.
I'm not changing the goal posts at all. For this particular case the goalposts have remained the same.
It is quite simple, DOES THE STACK BELOW PUSH UP?
If yes, then it pushes up and your explanation for why things fall fails yet again.
If no, then you have no explanation for why the membrane is pushed up.
The stack is all a resistance to above mass. It's all push on push but the stacking determines the pressure by mass of molecules.
Like I explained above. Suspend the box and you have the bottom resting on the stack at that point. ALl the stack is doing is resisting that membrane thickness against the atmosphere inside pushing down on it.
Like I said, you can argue that resistance is still pushing up and in a way you're right. But it's not pushing up with anything other than to resist a push from above.




Quote from: JackBlack
The fact you mention suck is a clear indication that you move one step forward and one step back.
Really? The fact that I mention suck to indicate that you can't have the lower pressure inside suck and thus it can't be the cause means I have taken a step back? Just how does that work?
Again you are resorting to just insulting me rather than addressing the massive flaws in your model.
Don't mention suck. It has no purpose and helps nobody, least of all, you.

Quote from: JackBlack
It was a small amount of atmosphere shielded by the bottom of the cup from the atmospheric push from above.
This meant that the small amount of atmosphere inside the cup...trapped, was no match to push out the water from that cup against the resistance of the atmosphere below....hence why the card stayed attached to the upturned cup of water.
No, that doesn't work.
If that was the case, you could remove the card and have the water stay, but it doesn't.
More importantly, the card extended well beyond the edge of the glass. That should be plenty to push it down.
The card extended well beyond the glass is in equalisation of atmospheric push to resistance to push from below.
All that's being done is the card that sticks out from all sides of the cup, os being pushed down on against its structure and resisted by the stack below it.
It creates an equilibrium of pressure on the card at those points.

The real issue is what is going on inside the upturned cup...as in the extreme low pressure above the water. That tiny amount of trapped atmosphere that absolutely cannot push down that water from the glass and the card against the resistance of the stack below it. This is because the atmosphere directly above the cup is shielded from aiding that push on that waterby the bottom structure of that cup.


Quote from: JackBlack
Also, if there is no push from below, just what is there to overcome?
RESISTANCE. The stack.

Quote from: JackBlack
You claim it is pushed from above with no push from below. If that is the case then it should fall. It is only if you have a push from below that it wont.
It would fall but it is being suspended by you holding the actual cup itself.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3282 on: January 20, 2019, 01:22:46 AM »
The same cupwatercard experiment can be done with zero air in the cup.
Try it.
The less compression the less push. Think about it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3283 on: January 20, 2019, 01:25:40 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
I've never hung any spring from a container with a mass on it and pressurised the container.

What do I think would happen?
It depends on the object and the container itself I suppose.

What would happen to a near perfectly round object inside a near perfectly spherical container under forced pressurisation?

Does it suspend in the middle of it?

sure!

Hi Sceptimatic,

Did you get around to figuring out what would happen here in your model?
I was asking you.
I said I've never done an experiment using what you say.
I'm asking you if it would suspend in the middle.

Do you know what happens?
Set something up in the way you feel you need to and explain what you're doing as close to exactness as you can.
See what your results are and let me know and we can go from there with that. Fair enough?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3284 on: January 20, 2019, 01:46:28 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
I've never hung any spring from a container with a mass on it and pressurised the container.

What do I think would happen?
It depends on the object and the container itself I suppose.

What would happen to a near perfectly round object inside a near perfectly spherical container under forced pressurisation?

Does it suspend in the middle of it?

sure!

Hi Sceptimatic,

Did you get around to figuring out what would happen here in your model?
I was asking you.
I said I've never done an experiment using what you say.
I'm asking you if it would suspend in the middle.

Do you know what happens?
Set something up in the way you feel you need to and explain what you're doing as close to exactness as you can.
See what your results are and let me know and we can go from there with that. Fair enough?

I was simply asking you what would happen in your model.  If your model canít handle this situation, thatís fine. Seems like a basic configuration any model of pressure and force should be able to handle, but thatís just my opinion I guess. 

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3285 on: January 20, 2019, 01:53:48 AM »
If the suspended box is at the same pressure as the atmosphere with the membrane laying on top of the stack then the stack acts as a resistance to that membrane whilst the atmosphere inside the box is simply equal to that resistance underneath. Result?....no push.
Then why isn't the atmosphere inside pushing down?
What you would need is the push to be equal, the air inside the box pushing down on the membrane and the air below the box pushing up.
So still a push.

Evacuate atmosphere from that suspended   box and you add that pressure to the atmosphere.
No, the change in pressure of the atmosphere is insignificant, and as shown with other things, you don't even need to evacuate the box to get the upwards push, so that can't be the cause.
You could also equally evacuate a chamber elsewhere and have the atmosphere's pressure increase, so that would also cause things to be pushed up, further causing problems, and to make it even worse, you don't need to evacuate the chamber into the atmosphere.
You can instead transfer the air from inside the chamber to another chamber with rigid walls and thus not effect the atmosphere at all.

So clearly any slight variation in pressure of the atmosphere has nothing to do with it and is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue.
As such, anything based upon that change in pressure is irrelevant to the discussion, and with that, there goes your explanation.

You could argue that resist is still a push up and it is
Good, glad you agree it is a push up. I wouldn't call it resistance though. But that means the object is being pushed from below.

but it isn't a pressure push up like you think it is., as in equal to the above and the sides.
Again, what magically makes it different?
Why is below so magically special, even though experiment show that the air below an object will still push up?

You seem to mention suck. It doesn't exist in reality.
Yes, I mention it to point it it doesn't exist, and thus the pressure inside the box cannot be the origin of the upwards push.
Address that rather than continually saying sucking isn't real as I'm not saying it is.

You create the push by lowering the pressure inside the box and allowing the stack to decompress at that point under the membrane.
Think about it.
I have thought about it. It makes no sense.
Again, the lower pressure inside can do nothing. All that can happen is the atmosphere below the box push up.
So you must have the atmosphere below push it up. It doesn't matter what you want to try and dress it up as, the experiment (and others like it) clearly show that the atmosphere below pushes upwards into an object.

And remember, all this "decompressing" is, is the atmosphere pushing objects as it expands.

The stack is all a resistance to above mass.
Why? Why just above?
Also, if that was the case then nothing would be pushed down due to it, only up.

It's all push on push
Which means it acts equally in opposite directions. The stack above pushes down and the stack below pushes up.

Suspend the box and you have the bottom resting on the stack at that point.
And the top rests on the stack above as well and likewise the stack above is resting on it.

Like I said, you can argue that resistance is still pushing up and in a way you're right. But it's not pushing up with anything other than to resist a push from above.
Likewise you can say the atmosphere above is nothing more than resisting the push from below.
Again, you have provided no basis for your magical directionality.




Don't mention suck. It has no purpose and helps nobody, least of all, you.
No, it does have a purpose. It's non-existence shows that the lower pressure inside the box can't be pulling the membrane up and instead it has to be the air below pushing it up, meaning the air below has to push upwards, completely destroying your claims.
This helps everyone that actually wants to understand how reality works.

The card extended well beyond the glass is in equalisation of atmospheric push to resistance to push from below.
Nope. That doesn't work either.
If that was the case, then if you just had the card in the air and let it go it would remain in place, but it goes down. So clearly the card is not merely an equal push from above and below. And again, that would still require a push up from below.

You can also repeat the experiment with a wide variety of card sizes and cup sizes so it clearly isn't a perfect match of the reduced area acting on the card balances it out.

All that's being done is the card that sticks out from all sides of the cup, os being pushed down on against its structure and resisted by the stack below it.
Again, either it is getting pushed up from below (which you want to pretend is just "resistance") or it would go down.

The real issue is what is going on inside the upturned cup
Only if you want to go back in to the realm of real physics where the atmosphere pushes equally in all directions rather than magically down, and that would require admitting that the air below pushes up.
With regards to your model however, as the contents of the cup are unable to pull the card upwards, they are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You have the card being pushed down by the air above which isn't covered by the cup, but the card doesn't move down.
The only way for this to work is if the card is being pushed up from below.

Quote from: JackBlack
Also, if there is no push from below, just what is there to overcome?
RESISTANCE. The stack.
Nope, that wouldn't stop it moving.
It doesn't matter what the resistance is, unless it is providing a force then it cannot counter the downwards force and thus it can't stop the card moving down.
It might slow the descent of the card, but it can't stop it.

It would fall but it is being suspended by you holding the actual cup itself.
I'm holding the cup, not the card. So I am not holding the card up.
The cup can't magically pull or suck the card up.
The only thing that can stop the card from falling is a push from below.

So again, you have a massive inconsistency in your model, where the atmosphere doesn't push objects upwards, but it does.
This makes no sense and shows your model to be wrong.

Even if you want to try presenting it as mere resistance, that still doesn't help you, as in some cases this resistance can push objects (such as a membrane) upwards, or stop objects falling (such as the card) yet in other cases it seems incapable of doing anything or resisting the push from above at all.

Either it pushes objects up from below, or it does not. PICK ONE, which will then apply universally.
Stop trying to have fundamentally different physics for different situations. If you need that, then your model does not work and does not describe reality.

Do you know what happens?
Set something up in the way you feel you need to and explain what you're doing as close to exactness as you can.
See what your results are and let me know and we can go from there with that. Fair enough?
While I haven't done it with a perfectly spherical container I have done it with various other shapes, including ones quite close to a sphere under reduced pressure.
The objects inside still fall.
So if objects fall due to magic stacking of the atmosphere then you still need this stacking inside these containers, even under artificially induced pressures.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3286 on: January 20, 2019, 02:03:06 AM »


I was simply asking you what would happen in your model.  If your model canít handle this situation, thatís fine. Seems like a basic configuration any model of pressure and force should be able to handle, but thatís just my opinion I guess.
What am I handling?
You put something forward. I have said I've done no experiment on it. I asked you to do one and tell me about it seeing as you are putting that forward.
Tell me exactly how you would set it up and let's deal with it.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3287 on: January 20, 2019, 02:12:18 AM »


I was simply asking you what would happen in your model.  If your model canít handle this situation, thatís fine. Seems like a basic configuration any model of pressure and force should be able to handle, but thatís just my opinion I guess.
What am I handling?
You put something forward. I have said I've done no experiment on it. I asked you to do one and tell me about it seeing as you are putting that forward.
Tell me exactly how you would set it up and let's deal with it.

Okay. If you donít want to deal with this scenario in your conceptual framework itís fine by me.  I donít need to bicker back and forth about it when it seems to me you are not interested in it.

Iíll just leave items suspended in a pressurized container as another unknown in what is understandable and not in your conceptual framework. 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2019, 02:14:55 AM by sobchak »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3288 on: January 20, 2019, 02:19:29 AM »
Then why isn't the atmosphere inside pushing down?
What you would need is the push to be equal, the air inside the box pushing down on the membrane and the air below the box pushing up.


Resistance.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3289 on: January 20, 2019, 02:21:15 AM »


I was simply asking you what would happen in your model.  If your model canít handle this situation, thatís fine. Seems like a basic configuration any model of pressure and force should be able to handle, but thatís just my opinion I guess.
What am I handling?
You put something forward. I have said I've done no experiment on it. I asked you to do one and tell me about it seeing as you are putting that forward.
Tell me exactly how you would set it up and let's deal with it.

Okay. If you donít want to deal with this scenario in your conceptual framework itís fine by me.  I donít need to bicker back and forth about it when it seems to me you are not interested in it.

Iíll just leave items suspended in a pressurized container as another unknown in what is understandable and not in your conceptual framework.
How about you tell me the set up and tell me what is understandable about it seeing as you're attempting to put me on the backburner.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3290 on: January 20, 2019, 02:24:43 AM »
As I understand from your descriptions of your conceptual model, a pressurized container has no stacking.

Is there a downward force on an object suspended in a pressurized container in your conceptual model?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3291 on: January 20, 2019, 02:36:17 AM »
The same cupwatercard experiment can be done with zero air in the cup.
Try it.
The less compression the less push. Think about it.

what was compressed?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3292 on: January 20, 2019, 02:37:27 AM »


I was simply asking you what would happen in your model.  If your model canít handle this situation, thatís fine. Seems like a basic configuration any model of pressure and force should be able to handle, but thatís just my opinion I guess.
What am I handling?
You put something forward. I have said I've done no experiment on it. I asked you to do one and tell me about it seeing as you are putting that forward.
Tell me exactly how you would set it up and let's deal with it.

hahaha sums it up right there!

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3293 on: January 20, 2019, 03:09:50 AM »
I was simply asking you what would happen in your model.
You put something forward. I have said I've done no experiment on it. I asked you to do one and tell me about it seeing as you are putting that forward.
Tell me exactly how you would set it up and let's deal with it.
[/quote]
He already has put forward a hypothetical situation and asked you to predict what should happen based upon your model, especially with your claim of uniform pressure inside the container.

It is quite simple: You have a chamber which is not at ambient pressure. The specific case he gave was one at greater than ambient pressure.

Resistance.
i.e. the air below is pushing up, clearly enough to stop an object falling. Pretending it is just "resistance" instead of a push doesn't magically make it not a push, as is clearly seen from the membrane example.
As such, an object released is pushed up from below as well as down from above and thus SHOULD NOT MOVE if your model is correct.

So once again, you are back to no explanation for why things fall.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3294 on: January 20, 2019, 03:23:31 AM »
As I understand from your descriptions of your conceptual model, a pressurized container has no stacking.

Is there a downward force on an object suspended in a pressurized container in your conceptual model?

That depends on the container.

Let me put this in a simple way...as I tried to do earlier.

If you have a perfect sphere and pressurise it then you have no stacking. It's equal.

Anything perfectly symmetrical and pressurised would be the same.

Change anything at all inside that object that upsets that and you create an unequal force.
Attaching a spring and mass inside something like that changes the pressure upon the mass and spring with that mass and spring displacing that pressure with their own mass.

So where do you want to go from this point?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3295 on: January 20, 2019, 03:24:53 AM »
The same cupwatercard experiment can be done with zero air in the cup.
Try it.
The less compression the less push. Think about it.

what was compressed?
The atmosphere is compressed.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3296 on: January 20, 2019, 05:18:40 AM »
And to detract from my very importatn jug vs rock question...

If lower air doesnt stack, what is the cause for a feather to flutter?
What do you mean, if lower air doesn't stack? Who said lower air doesn't stack?

Holysht
YOU DID!
No I didn't. Go and find where I said it.

Correct
I typoed.
I meant to say "stack up".
Upper air stacks down but lower air doesnt stack up?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3297 on: January 20, 2019, 05:19:20 AM »
Why are we on an island measuring rocks with jugs of water?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3298 on: January 20, 2019, 05:26:47 AM »
 sceptimatic
 
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
ę Reply #3281 on: Today at 01:21:20 AM Ľ
Quote from: JackBlack on January 19, 2019, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 02:35:57 PM
First of all I wasn't talking about a lowered pressure in a box with a membrane on the bottom but you changed it to that because you want to try and show that the stack pushes up.
No, not trying, succeeding.
Again, the membrane clearly shows the lower stack pushes up.

Stop trying to have completely different physics for different situations.
If it can magically push up with a lower pressure inside but it magically doesn't when it is at the same pressure inside, then you have a massive inconsistency in your model.
If the suspended box is at the same pressure as the atmosphere with the membrane laying on top of the stack then the stack acts as a resistance to that membrane whilst the atmosphere inside the box is simply equal to that resistance underneath. Result?....no push.



There is the mass of the water.
So you have air pressure thats equal and also has the weight of the water.
By your logic the water should overthrow the eqution and be able to push its way out.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3299 on: January 20, 2019, 05:42:36 AM »
And to detract from my very importatn jug vs rock question...

If lower air doesnt stack, what is the cause for a feather to flutter?
What do you mean, if lower air doesn't stack? Who said lower air doesn't stack?

Holysht
YOU DID!
No I didn't. Go and find where I said it.

Correct
I typoed.
I meant to say "stack up".
Upper air stacks down but lower air doesnt stack up?
All atmosphere stacks UP. It doesn't push up as such. It resists by pushing against the atmospheric stack that is using each stack under it to use as a leverage (resistance) the resist against the stack above but the atmosphere does not stack from above.