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

DOWN is towards the center of the earth.
UP is AWAY from the center of the earth. 

Or if you want to more general, up is away from the center of mass.    Gravity never PULLS UP,  it always PULLS DOWN, 

Or rephrasing that,  gravity is always attractive between masses,  no-one has ever discovered anti-gravity.

If you were falling down a hole that went all the way through the earth,  then you would end up after some time,  floating weightless at the center of the earth.  Probably oscillate back and forth at terminal velocity for a while.   You'd be dead of course.

Tides are caused by the moons gravitational field,  not by the earth,  the earth always pulls down,   the moon pulls the tides towards the center of mass of the moon,  which is still DOWN,  but from the moons point of view.   Gravity always attracts.

From the stacking up of each molecule pushing into each other to create a resistance on each other from bottom to top.

Analogy: One football on the ground pushes the next football on top of it and that football pushes against the bottom football but also against the football above it. And so on and so on until the very last football is pushed upon but does not push back because it has nothing to push back with, so it freezes.
Just think of this happening in the almost (to us) infinite of molecules all in different stages of pushing, or vibrating at frequencies galore.

Back to stacking,  why do the molecules (footballs)  push into each other,  what force is causing that push in the stack?   Without gravity there is nothing pushing the football into the next one.

You can have pressure  inside a closed volume  without gravity,  but the pressure acts equally in all directions,  there is no UP or DOWN.

On the cause of the up/down direction when it comes to denpressure, the easiest way to think of it I've found is to consider in terms of buoyancy. We exist at ground level, so to push up we move away from ground level, which displaces air. If you think of what's above as as a somehow upside-down swimming pool, then the water would push you back to the ground. Clearly gravity isn't needed to act in the same direction as the force; the water resists displacement.
As, under Scepti's model, air molecules expand to fill a gap, you do end up with a much more connected environment, more akin to a fluid than how you might think of air as molecules whirling around independently.

As far as understanding the basic mechanism goes, though, considering it as buoyancy is the best way I've found.

On the cause of the up/down direction when it comes to denpressure, the easiest way to think of it I've found is to consider in terms of buoyancy. We exist at ground level, so to push up we move away from ground level, which displaces air. If you think of what's above as as a somehow upside-down swimming pool, then the water would push you back to the ground. Clearly gravity isn't needed to act in the same direction as the force; the water resists displacement.
As, under Scepti's model, air molecules expand to fill a gap, you do end up with a much more connected environment, more akin to a fluid than how you might think of air as molecules whirling around independently.

As far as understanding the basic mechanism goes, though, considering it as buoyancy is the best way I've found.

Therein lies the problem,  what distinguishes pushing UP from pushing LEFT or RIGHT or for that matter DOWN.  The connected environment would act equally in all directions.

Therein lies the problem,  what distinguishes pushing UP from pushing LEFT or RIGHT or for that matter DOWN.  The connected environment would act equally in all directions.

Not if you think of it like a pool: if you move left and right underwater, you don't get pushed back, but you do get pushed up because you entered into the environment from the top.
It's worth nothing that there does seem to be something that distinguishes the ground. I seem to remember Scepti saying the dome itself is made up of air, as it got so far away that it'd basically freeze, so if you go far left, far right, far up, you'd stay strictly in air. Only below us is there ground, which is why the pool analogy's effective: you are effectively entering into the air from below.

On the cause of the up/down direction when it comes to denpressure, the easiest way to think of it I've found is to consider in terms of buoyancy. We exist at ground level, so to push up we move away from ground level, which displaces air. If you think of what's above as as a somehow upside-down swimming pool, then the water would push you back to the ground. Clearly gravity isn't needed to act in the same direction as the force; the water resists displacement.
As, under Scepti's model, air molecules expand to fill a gap, you do end up with a much more connected environment, more akin to a fluid than how you might think of air as molecules whirling around independently.

As far as understanding the basic mechanism goes, though, considering it as buoyancy is the best way I've found.

It is actually the best way.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 07, 2016, 08:31:59 AM

Therein lies the problem,  what distinguishes pushing UP from pushing LEFT or RIGHT or for that matter DOWN.  The connected environment would act equally in all directions.

Not if you think of it like a pool: if you move left and right underwater, you don't get pushed back, but you do get pushed up because you entered into the environment from the top.
It's worth nothing that there does seem to be something that distinguishes the ground. I seem to remember Scepti saying the dome itself is made up of air, as it got so far away that it'd basically freeze, so if you go far left, far right, far up, you'd stay strictly in air. Only below us is there ground, which is why the pool analogy's effective: you are effectively entering into the air from below.

Good analogy,  you can't go down the earth stops movement in that direction,  that but if you try to go up you have to push against the stacked air which provides a downward resistance.   

Considering your mathematical background, have you put any thought into formalizing denpressure in mathematical terms. 

Then we need to find an environment that this physics would approximate,  maybe flying through the heavier atmosphere of some of the gas giants like Jupiter? 

Good analogy,  you can't go down the earth stops movement in that direction,  that but if you try to go up you have to push against the stacked air which provides a downward resistance.   

Considering your mathematical background, have you put any thought into formalizing denpressure in mathematical terms. 

Then we need to find an environment that this physics would approximate,  maybe flying through the heavier atmosphere of some of the gas giants like Jupiter?

I'm mostly into purer maths. Pretty good at applied, but I'd need quite a refresher course, which'll have to wait for after my MSc. Still, I'd imagine just using the buoyancy equation, with definitions and constants suitably altered, would give a fair depiction as it seems to be the same underlying principle.

It would be an interesting exercise,  nonetheless.

Coming from a pure maths background,  I'd recommend brushing up by watching a few  Leonard Suskind  Stanford videos,  the degree of rigour that pure maths instills is lacking in some respects, but for understanding the physics from an applied point of view he is excellent.

Maybe start with classical mechanics.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 11:33:43 AM

You subscribe to a theory that ignores the most basic principles of fluid dynamics.

And what is that?

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/properties2.html
Here's a website from Perdue University describing basic qualities of gas, particularly the 2nd principle of gas "gases expand to fill their containers," and while you are there brushing up on your elementary physics try and find a principle of gas that states gas particles can stack in a heap like a bale of hay.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Because it's stacked from the bottom up and expands till it cannot agitate. IIt then goes dormant and forms the skin. The ice dome.

The ice dome? Earlier you said the upper atmosphere is not held by a solid firmament, and now you have changed your stance. If this "ice dome" does exist, then the earth is a large container and therefore the atmosphere would constantly push toward equilibrium and pressurize the entire system. You know, how gases would work in reality, instead of your untested thought experiments?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Is the atmosphere the same at the top of a high mountain as it is at the bottom?
If not, there goes your equilibrium. It's stacked.

No, the pressure changes as you change altitude because gravity is pulling the atmosphere toward the earth's center of gravity. I am telling you that in your model, based on the simplest principles of gases, air pressure shouldn't change at all because gravity doesn't exist, and the system is enclosed under the supposed "ice dome". This is because gases expand to fill their container, no matter the size of the container.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 11:33:43 AM

This is because air, being a gas, will expand and form the shape of any container it is placed in.

Yep, in a container it will.

You mean like the container created by the ice dome?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 11:33:43 AM

Note that when I say "expand" the actual size of the particles themselves remains constant, the parties just spread out more.

When you say they spread out more, do you mean they expand or do you mean they simply spread out and leave free space?

The particles spread out of course, particles themselves do not magically grow in size. Where did you get such an idea? Why would gas particles have this property when solid and liquid particles do not?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

The gases aren't kept in the system by the firmament. The gases simply stop being pushed/squeezed up and simply freeze against a (possibly) a true vacuum.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: For CO2 to freeze, it needs to be under very high pressure. Look up a phase diagram for carbon dioxide if you dont believe me. In your model (and mine) gases are at very low pressure at high altitude, so where does the sudden high pressure come from? One gram of solid CO2 has a volume of 0.641 mL. At 0C and atmospheric pressure, the same amount of CO2 gas has a volume of 556 mL, which is more than 850 times as large. At altitude, the change in volume would be exponentially greater. This means that, to form an ice dome, you need a very large amount of gas to be kept at very high pressure. The ice dome model is simply not feasible in any real sense. Since the ice dome physically cannot exist, what is keeping the entire atmosphere from diffusing into the vacuum of space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 11:33:43 AM

I am sure you are familiar with the concept, "Nature abhors a vacuum"

Yep and in nature there isn't a vacuum, because a vacuum does not and cannot exist to our perception. It can to our imagination.

OK so if a vacuum cannot exist, what lies beyond the firmament? Previously you said there was a vacuum there, but you have already changed your mind on the subject of a rigid firmament, so I guess your model still needs some kinks worked out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Because it's stacked from the bottom up.

Could you show any real, testable evidence that gases stack? Are there any experiments that could allow one to reach this conclusion?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

They do stack in the way I'm describing.

Why don't you prove it? You cannot just make claims and say they are true. You need to test them in repeatable experiments. And no, making slipshod analogies comparing solid bodies to fluids doesn't count as a repeatable experiment. This entire thread is about testing the denpressure model. Can't you perform or at least devise an experiment that can verify your claims?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 11:33:43 AM

It doesn't really seem like you have an open mind. You rejected all of the experimental findings in this thread, without offering a single thought as to what those findings could mean.

I'm taking on-board everything that's being said. I am not just going to jump in and accept them as being correct if they do not show a true reflection.

You agreed to the experiments and their possible conclusions. I even asked you if you had any problems with the experiments before they were conducted, and you claimed you didn't. Now that the results of the experiments you agreed with initially have incontrovertibly proven denpressure to be false, only now do you claim they "do not show a true reflection". Could you possibly be more vague? Why didn't you make corrections to the experiments before the experiments were conducted?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 01:23:14 PM

It appears to me that your goal is to smash this theory rather than try and understand it to get it to a favourable position.

I understand the theory perfectly. That is why I am able to tell you all of the things that are wrong with it. If you had any understanding of the properties of gases, you would be able to comprehend these issues as well.

Scepti I really hate it when you ignore my posts. You claim that I "don't understand even the most basic parts" of denpressure, maybe it's because you keep changing your mind? Is there a true vacuum beyond the atmosphere, or can vacuums not exist at all? Is there some sort of ice dome, or does a rigid firmament not exist? I provided very simple, verifiable explanations as to why your theory cannot work, but you simply ignore them.

About your analogies. You cannot compare gas particles to solid particles. If you had studied the properties of matter, you would know that gas particles do not behave like grains of sand piled on a table. Gas particles do not grow in size under low pressure. Vacuum chambers, while unable to form a TRUE vacuum, can get very close, within .001% of a true vacuum.

You still have not given any reason as to WHY the experiments were flawed. Why do you avoid the issue?

Scepti I really hate it when you ignore my posts. You claim that I "don't understand even the most basic parts" of denpressure, maybe it's because you keep changing your mind? Is there a true vacuum beyond the atmosphere, or can vacuums not exist at all? Is there some sort of ice dome, or does a rigid firmament not exist? I provided very simple, verifiable explanations as to why your theory cannot work, but you simply ignore them.

About your analogies. You cannot compare gas particles to solid particles. If you had studied the properties of matter, you would know that gas particles do not behave like grains of sand piled on a table. Gas particles do not grow in size under low pressure. Vacuum chambers, while unable to form a TRUE vacuum, can get very close, within .001% of a true vacuum.

You still have not given any reason as to WHY the experiments were flawed. Why do you avoid the issue?

I'm not avoiding any issue. I just don't think I can go much further in explaining to you if you can't even grasp some of the stuff.
You make out you do but you clearly don't by the way you're going on.

DOWN is towards the center of the earth.
UP is AWAY from the center of the earth. 

Or if you want to more general, up is away from the center of mass.    Gravity never PULLS UP,  it always PULLS DOWN, 

Or rephrasing that,  gravity is always attractive between masses,  no-one has ever discovered anti-gravity.

If you were falling down a hole that went all the way through the earth,  then you would end up after some time,  floating weightless at the center of the earth.  Probably oscillate back and forth at terminal velocity for a while.   You'd be dead of course.

Tides are caused by the moons gravitational field,  not by the earth,  the earth always pulls down,   the moon pulls the tides towards the center of mass of the moon,  which is still DOWN,  but from the moons point of view.   Gravity always attracts.

Quote

From the stacking up of each molecule pushing into each other to create a resistance on each other from bottom to top.

Analogy: One football on the ground pushes the next football on top of it and that football pushes against the bottom football but also against the football above it. And so on and so on until the very last football is pushed upon but does not push back because it has nothing to push back with, so it freezes.
Just think of this happening in the almost (to us) infinite of molecules all in different stages of pushing, or vibrating at frequencies galore.

Back to stacking,  why do the molecules (footballs)  push into each other,  what force is causing that push in the stack?   Without gravity there is nothing pushing the football into the next one.

You can have pressure  inside a closed volume  without gravity,  but the pressure acts equally in all directions,  there is no UP or DOWN.

And here, we see the Rayzor deny the tidal forces...

And here, we see the Rayzor deny the tidal forces...

I sure Rayzor could defend himself, but I got nothing going on right now.

You must have missed this part of his post.

the moon pulls the tides towards the center of mass of the moon,  which is still down,  but from the moons point of view.   Gravity always attracts.

Please help me grasp how gas particles stack like a pile of sand on a table. Every analogy you have used involves solid objects stacking. Try placing water on a table, see if it stacks like you imagine it would. Even the most basic principles of gases and how they act state that gases do not behave in this way. I have no idea how you reached this conclusion outside of your own thought experiments. If gases stack in a way that has a measurable effect, there should be an experiment showing this effect. If an experiment cannot be performed or even devised, then you should abandon your theoretical ideas.

Please  help me understand vacuums. You contradict yourself several times regarding vacuums. Do they exist? You claim a vacuum cannot exist in nature, yet you also claim that the upper atmosphere freezes as it meets the vacuum of space. Do you have any proof of this? Or does the atmosphere "freeze" only in your thought experiments?

Please help me understand the ice dome. As I have shown, gases need to be under high pressure and incredibly low temperatures to freeze. Yet you have said that at the upper atmosphere has low pressure. Where does the high pressure necessary for solidification of upper atmosphere gases come from?

Please help me understand why you refute the experiments in this thread. Before the experiments were conducted, I asked you personally if you had any problems with the experiments. You claimed they were sound. Only after they have shown evidence against your fragile mindset do you give vague claims about inconclusiveness. Why are the results inconclusive?

You have done nothing to reaffirm your claims with verifiable facts. Your only explanations for stacking gas particles are flawed analogies. The reason why they are flawed is because they utilize solid objects that are supposed to represent gaseous objects. This is beyond apples and oranges. This is like comparing apples to air, (which is literally what you're doing).

Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.

Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.

I took a step sideways,  to resolve the same questions that you are asking.   First,  treat denpressure as an abstract theoretical physics that doesn't intersect with the real world, and then try and construct a self consistent physics based on denpressure.  Experimentally we know it doesn't work in the real world,  but that's irrelevant for now.

Ok,  on to my concept of stacking.    We have no gravity remember. 

But we do have ground,  which stops us from going in that direction,  which we will call down,  what keeps us on the ground and stops us going up is the stacked air above us, the stack resists us by pushing back, just as we push against the ground.    At least that's my current understanding.

Quote from: jroa on August 07, 2016, 03:00:59 PM

And here, we see the Rayzor deny the tidal forces...

I sure Rayzor could defend himself, but I got nothing going on right now.

You must have missed this part of his post.

Quote

the moon pulls the tides towards the center of mass of the moon,  which is still down,  but from the moons point of view.   Gravity always attracts.

Thanks Woody,  jroa is predictable if nothing else,   and mostly it's nothing else.

Tidal forces in a gravitational sense aren't usually the ocean tides as such,  but rather the divergence of the gravitational field that is responsible to "tidal locking" of a moons rotation that is commonly seen.

Now jroa can butt in with more of his useful and homely insights.

I took a step sideways,  to resolve the same questions that you are asking.   First,  treat denpressure as an abstract theoretical physics that doesn't intersect with the real world, and then try and construct a self consistent physics based on denpressure.  Experimentally we know it doesn't work in the real world,  but that's irrelevant for now.

If denpressure doesn't work in the real world, then why continue supporting it? Why use it as a model to explain the world around you when it doesn't work?

Ok,  on to my concept of stacking.    We have no gravity remember. 

But we do have ground,  which stops us from going in that direction,  which we will call down,  what keeps us on the ground and stops us going up is the stacked air above us, the stack resists us by pushing back, just as we push against the ground.    At least that's my current understanding.

That's all well and good, but at the very top of the stack, what is pulling that final molecule downward? There is no pressure pushing it downwards, so why wouldn't that top particle jettison into space?

Lets just look at one molecule at the very top.  What causes the downward force is stacking according to your model.  What is pushing that single top molecule down on the one below it?

Quote from: Rayzor on August 07, 2016, 05:58:31 PM

I took a step sideways,  to resolve the same questions that you are asking.   First,  treat denpressure as an abstract theoretical physics that doesn't intersect with the real world, and then try and construct a self consistent physics based on denpressure.  Experimentally we know it doesn't work in the real world,  but that's irrelevant for now.

If denpressure doesn't work in the real world, then why continue supporting it? Why use it as a model to explain the world around you when it doesn't work?

I'm not supporting it as anything relevant to the real world,   I am interested to understand it a bit better and to see if it is in fact self consistent.  I'd like to see it modelled mathematically.

Ok,  on to my concept of stacking.    We have no gravity remember. 

But we do have ground,  which stops us from going in that direction,  which we will call down,  what keeps us on the ground and stops us going up is the stacked air above us, the stack resists us by pushing back, just as we push against the ground.    At least that's my current understanding.

That's all well and good, but at the very top of the stack, what is pulling that final molecule downward? There is no pressure pushing it downwards, so why wouldn't that top particle jettison into space?

Lets just look at one molecule at the very top.  What causes the downward force is stacking according to your model.  What is pushing that single top molecule down on the one below it?

Good question,  I don't know for sure,  but I think the free molecules at the top of the stack are frozen,  that is they can't expand any more,  they are stretched to the limit. 

In some ways there are parallels with Aristotle's laws of physics,  which   Leonard Susskind does an excellent job describing.

Please help me grasp how gas particles stack like a pile of sand on a table. Every analogy you have used involves solid objects stacking.

Yeah, I'm stupid, I should have realised you can't grasp analogies.

Try placing water on a table, see if it stacks like you imagine it would.

And to think I've spent all this time explaining things to you. I'm just pleased some people grasped what I was saying.

Even the most basic principles of gases and how they act state that gases do not behave in this way.

How about just telling me how they behave and use an analogy in a simple way to explain. If you can.

 

I have no idea how you reached this conclusion outside of your own thought experiments. If gases stack in a way that has a measurable effect, there should be an experiment showing this effect. If an experiment cannot be performed or even devised, then you should abandon your theoretical ideas.

Yes there's experiments but none of which you are interested in or are even willing to grasp, because your goal is not to grasp, it's to attempt ridicule whilst basically wasting your own time and effort.

Please  help me understand vacuums. You contradict yourself several times regarding vacuums. Do they exist? You claim a vacuum cannot exist in nature, yet you also claim that the upper atmosphere freezes as it meets the vacuum of space.

I've explained it all very simply and yet you pretend or simply can't understand it.

Do you have any proof of this? Or does the atmosphere "freeze" only in your thought experiments?

I'll leave that up to you to decide, to amuse yourself.

Please help me understand the ice dome. As I have shown, gases need to be under high pressure and incredibly low temperatures to freeze. Yet you have said that at the upper atmosphere has low pressure. Where does the high pressure necessary for solidification of upper atmosphere gases come from?

I don't think you can or want to be help, seriously. I think your goal is to simply muddy the waters at best or you simply cannot comprehend simplicity.

Please help me understand why you refute the experiments in this thread. Before the experiments were conducted, I asked you personally if you had any problems with the experiments. You claimed they were sound. Only after they have shown evidence against your fragile mindset do you give vague claims about inconclusiveness. Why are the results inconclusive?

The experiments are inconclusive and I've stated why.

You have done nothing to reaffirm your claims with verifiable facts. Your only explanations for stacking gas particles are flawed analogies.

Then accept it as that and make this your last post to me, as we have nothing else to say to each other.


 

The reason why they are flawed is because they utilize solid objects that are supposed to represent gaseous objects. This is beyond apples and oranges. This is like comparing apples to air, (which is literally what you're doing).

Yeah. I suppose the big plastic balls on sticks sat on professors desks are nothing to you as well, eh?

Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.

Quite frankly I'm bored of pointing anything out to you. You came in with the usual interest routine and now you're attempting the normal routine of trying your best to muddy the waters and along with your little posse of like-minded sewage makers, you're trying your best to make people believe my theory is nonsense.
Well it isn't happening and you will now have to go and get another name to come back and join in again with me because this name is done with.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 07, 2016, 04:08:35 PM

Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.

I took a step sideways,  to resolve the same questions that you are asking.   First,  treat denpressure as an abstract theoretical physics that doesn't intersect with the real world, and then try and construct a self consistent physics based on denpressure.  Experimentally we know it doesn't work in the real world,  but that's irrelevant for now.

Ok,  on to my concept of stacking.    We have no gravity remember. 

But we do have ground,  which stops us from going in that direction,  which we will call down,  what keeps us on the ground and stops us going up is the stacked air above us, the stack resists us by pushing back, just as we push against the ground.    At least that's my current understanding.

I'd like it if you keep your mindset. You appear to be grasping it all, so why not just use it to go right down and deep as an exercise at least.

Lets just look at one molecule at the very top.  What causes the downward force is stacking according to your model.  What is pushing that single top molecule down on the one below it?

Nothing is pushing that last molecule down because that last molecule sits against no more matter. A true vacuum. A blackness to our eyes and perception.
Basically that last molecule is pushed up as the very last strength the Earth cell has to push and ends up as a frozen  expanded molecule at the very top.
The only thing that molecule is doing in resting on the molecule below.

Even the most basic principles of gases and how they act state that gases do not behave in this way.

How about just telling me how they behave and use an analogy in a simple way to explain. If you can.

Have you ever made microwave popcorn? If you take the bag out of the plastic and cut it open, you see solid kernels. They are dormant, immobile. Let these represent clusters of particles in a solid state (because that is what they are). Get a second bag out of the box (the first one was ruined) and put it in the microwave for a few minutes. When it starts to pop, you will see the popcorn shoot out at all angles, smashing against the inside of the bag, expanding the total area occupied by the particles. This change in the kernels represents the particles going directly from the solid phase to the gaseous phase, also known as sublimation. In the moment they are in motion, each kernel exhibits many qualities of a gas particle. It is mobile. It expands to fill its container. Most of all, it achieves equilibrium when the bag is packed full of popcorn at high pressure. Another interesting connection is the fact that a gas takes up much more volume than a solid.

At least when I use solid particles to describe gaseous ones, they partially resemble reality.

 

I have no idea how you reached this conclusion outside of your own thought experiments. If gases stack in a way that has a measurable effect, there should be an experiment showing this effect. If an experiment cannot be performed or even devised, then you should abandon your theoretical ideas.

Yes there's experiments but none of which you are interested in or are even willing to grasp

If such experiments exist, why not pose one that we can all replicate? Is that not the point of this thread? Why have you been holding out on us?

Please  help me understand vacuums. You contradict yourself several times regarding vacuums. Do they exist? You claim a vacuum cannot exist in nature, yet you also claim that the upper atmosphere freezes as it meets the vacuum of space.

I've explained it all very simply and yet you pretend or simply can't understand it.[/quote]
You're right. I don't understand. You have said the following things about vacuums:
1. Vacuums absolutely cannot exist
2. On the opposite side of the ice wall, a vacuum may exist.
Which is it? You have not made your point 100% clear.

Do you have any proof of this? Or does the atmosphere "freeze" only in your thought experiments?

I'll leave that up to you to decide, to amuse yourself.[/quote]
Luckily for you I know that the ice dome cannot physically exist in the way you describe it. However if you cannot comprehend scientifically proven models, there's no helping you. Try and make solid hydrogen yourself, let me know how it works for you.

Please help me understand the ice dome. As I have shown, gases need to be under high pressure and incredibly low temperatures to freeze. Yet you have said that at the upper atmosphere has low pressure. Where does the high pressure necessary for solidification of upper atmosphere gases come from?

I don't think you can or want to be help[sic], seriously. I think your goal is to simply muddy the waters at best or you simply cannot comprehend simplicity.

I truly do want help understanding your model. I have found inconsistencies in your model that I deem necessary of addressing. I gave a reasoned explanation for why your ice dome cannot exist in the way you describe it. Do you not understand my explanation? Would an analogy help?

Please help me understand why you refute the experiments in this thread. Before the experiments were conducted, I asked you personally if you had any problems with the experiments. You claimed they were sound. Only after they have shown evidence against your fragile mindset do you give vague claims about inconclusiveness. Why are the results inconclusive?

The experiments are inconclusive and I've stated why.

I still don't see any reason why you can't pose your own experiment.

You have done nothing to reaffirm your claims with verifiable facts. Your only explanations for stacking gas particles are flawed analogies.

Then accept it as that and make this your last post to me, as we have nothing else to say to say to each other

Is this due to the fact that you can only use analogies to explain anything? Can you actually explain your model without the crutch of analogy?

Yeah. I suppose the big plastic balls on sticks sat on professors desks are nothing to you as well, eh?

Newton's cradle? I'm surprised you've heard of him.

Please point out which of my statements are flawed, and why they are flawed. I have done this constantly with your model and all you have to offer me are half assed explanations and flawed analogies. Please give a final answer regarding the existence of a rigid firmament and the existence of vacuums. Please act like you are actually seeking the truth of the universe around you, instead of ignoring me like a coward.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 12:28:07 AM

Quite frankly I'm bored of pointing anything out to you. You came in with the usual interest routine and now you're attempting the normal routine of trying your best to muddy the waters and along with your little posse of like-minded sewage makers, you're trying your best to make people believe my theory is nonsense.
Well it isn't happening and you will now have to go and get another name to come back and join in again with me because this name is done with.

Typical flat earth response. I gave you reasoned arguments as to why your model cannot work but you cannot defend it, so you slink off and ignore I said anything at all. That's fine, you can shrug me off if you want, but don't expect to actually convince anybody that denpressure has anything to do with this universe.

Quite frankly I'm bored of pointing anything out to you. You came in with the usual interest routine and now you're attempting the normal routine of trying your best to muddy the waters and along with your little posse of like-minded sewage makers, you're trying your best to make people believe my theory is nonsense.
Well it isn't happening and you will now have to go and get another name to come back and join in again with me because this name is done with.

If your hypothesis is so wonderful how is it that you can't convince any but a couple of flat earthers that there is anything in it.

Maybe everyone reading this thread should read the the "full story" on The Wild Heritic, My Earth hypothesis.

It's much more entertaining than the scraps from Sceppy's table we get here!

 
Yes there's experiments but none of which you are interested in or are even willing to grasp, because your goal is not to grasp, it's to attempt ridicule whilst basically wasting your own time and effort.

Apologies, I did not know there were other experiments to perform.  Please detail them or post a link and I'll run them when I get the chance.

Ah, the tragedy of the Newcastle fan....

WOW this thread is still alive! 

WOW this thread is still alive! 

Of course it's still alive. It's alive for the purpose of those looking in to sift through and get a grasp of reality.

Of course it's still alive. It's alive for the purpose of those looking in to sift through and get a grasp of reality.

What reality? The one where you were proven wrong in 4 experiments that you yourself approved of initially? The reality in which you failed to give any reasoning to your thoughts of inconclusiveness? The reality in which you ignore the most basic principles of chemistry and physics? Is this the reality you are referring to? Because that is all that an outside observer will see.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 10:40:17 AM

Of course it's still alive. It's alive for the purpose of those looking in to sift through and get a grasp of reality.

What reality? The one where you were proven wrong in 4 experiments that you yourself approved of initially? The reality in which you failed to give any reasoning to your thoughts of inconclusiveness? The reality in which you ignore the most basic principles of chemistry and physics? Is this the reality you are referring to? Because that is all that an outside observer will see.

Nobody's proved me wrong and to be honest, you need to pipe down because you're absolutely clueless in terms of grasping it, so piping up with the crap you do is absolutely irrelevant.