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

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.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 10:50:55 AM

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.

Nobody has agreed anything you say is right...

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

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.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?

I can't explain anything to you; you know nothing about the theory because you spent far too much time waiting to jump on it before you gave yourself a chance to gain any insight into it.
People like you will spend all your spare time parroting numbers and such of silly things like space fantasies and totally be devoid of using any logic on reality.

It doesn't matter how many different names you use, you still don't grasp it. lol

My videos show you to be wrong.

How come I weigh the same on an airplane as I do on the ground?

How come I weigh the same on an airplane as I do on the ground?

Have you weighed yourself on an aeroplane then?

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 03:24:59 PM

How come I weigh the same on an airplane as I do on the ground?

Have you weighed yourself on an aeroplane then?

Yes. I have. Just for fun. I weight less when the plane leveled out at altitude, but then my weight went back to normal during cruising.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 03:25:55 PM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 03:24:59 PM

How come I weigh the same on an airplane as I do on the ground?

Have you weighed yourself on an aeroplane then?

Yes. I have. Just for fun. I weight less when the plane leveled out at altitude, but then my weight went back to normal during cruising.

Did you have the scales in your satchel as you boarded or was there a special pocket in your parachute sack?

I had a cheap bathroom scale. With a little needle that pointed to the number that matched my weight.

I had a cheap bathroom scale. With a little needle that pointed to the number that matched my weight.

No you didn't. You mean you're testing out a cheap lie to me and I'm not buying your bullshit.

Fine. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.

Fine. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.

I have tested them and I had to reset the pointer to zero because it drifted.

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 04:14:05 PM

Fine. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.

I have tested them and I had to reset the pointer to zero because it drifted.

No you didn't. You mean you're testing out a cheap lie to me and I'm not buying your bullshit.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 04:27:00 PM

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 08, 2016, 04:14:05 PM

Fine. If you don't believe me, test it yourself.

I have tested them and I had to reset the pointer to zero because it drifted.

No you didn't. You mean you're testing out a cheap lie to me and I'm not buying your bullshit.

You started it.

Started what?

Started what?

The lies. Now let that be a lesson to you.

When did I lie?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 03:09:34 PM

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

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.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?

I can't explain anything to you; you know nothing about the theory because you spent far too much time waiting to jump on it before you gave yourself a chance to gain any insight into it.
People like you will spend all your spare time parroting numbers and such of silly things like space fantasies and totally be devoid of using any logic on reality.

It doesn't matter how many different names you use, you still don't grasp it. lol

I know everything there is to know about the density-pressure theory commonly shortened to "Denpressure." Allow me to demonstrate what I know.

Denpressure refutes the unnecessary invented force of gravity. According to the model, density and pressure give objects the appearance of weight. This is caused by the stacked atmosphere, with heavier gases like Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide circulating at the bottom, and less dense gases like Hydrogen and Helium circulate toward the top. All of these gases exert force upon each other in all directions, but since the heavier particles have more weight and can therefore exert more energy upon the surrounding parties, they end up pushing the lighter particles with more force, effectively squeezing these particles to the top of the system. At the very top of the stack, the particles simply freeze into solids, forming an ice dome which completes the system.

Am I missing something?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 03:18:47 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 03:09:34 PM

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

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.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?

I can't explain anything to you; you know nothing about the theory because you spent far too much time waiting to jump on it before you gave yourself a chance to gain any insight into it.
People like you will spend all your spare time parroting numbers and such of silly things like space fantasies and totally be devoid of using any logic on reality.

It doesn't matter how many different names you use, you still don't grasp it. lol

I know everything there is to know about the density-pressure theory commonly shortened to "Denpressure." Allow me to demonstrate what I know.

Denpressure refutes the unnecessary invented force of gravity. According to the model, density and pressure give objects the appearance of weight. This is caused by the stacked atmosphere, with heavier gases like Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide circulating at the bottom, and less dense gases like Hydrogen and Helium circulate toward the top. All of these gases exert force upon each other in all directions, but since the heavier particles have more weight and can therefore exert more energy upon the surrounding parties, they end up pushing the lighter particles with more force, effectively squeezing these particles to the top of the system. At the very top of the stack, the particles simply freeze into solids, forming an ice dome which completes the system.

Am I missing something?

I get confused about how you can have heavier and lighter particles, without gravity,  so weight needs to be replaced by something else,  can't be density since that carries an implied weight,  the closest I can come to anything that makes sense,  is all objects with mass have a resistance to being moved, some have more mass and interact with their neighbours more strongly either through friction or something akin to viscosity.

The more mass that gets squeezed into a small space the higher the "denspressure", and hence the more resistance to being moved.

It's closer to Aristotle than Newton.   

You are correct. When I say "lighter or heavier" particles, I am referring to the density of the particles, and the appearance of weight given to those particles when they are under pressure.

When you think about a particle like Oxygen (which usually forms a bond with 1 other oxygen atom, forming O₂. These two atoms together have 16 neutrons and 16 protons, compared to Hydrogen's 1 proton and 0 neutrons. This makes a standard oxygen molecule more massive, which means it can exert more force on the hydrogen particle than hydrogen can exert upon the O₂ molecule.

You are correct. When I say "lighter or heavier" particles, I am referring to the density of the particles, and the appearance of weight given to those particles when they are under pressure.

When you think about a particle like Oxygen (which usually forms a bond with 1 other oxygen atom, forming O₂. These two atoms together have 16 neutrons and 16 protons, compared to Hydrogen's 1 proton and 0 neutrons. This makes a standard oxygen molecule more massive, which means it can exert more force on the hydrogen particle than hydrogen can exert upon the O ₂ molecule.

That's a good way of describing it.

So Let's try a few definitions.

1.  mass   = the amount of stuff.  We don't need to say anything about what the stuff is,  just that you can have more or less of it. 
2.  distance = length in normal 3 dimensional space.
3.  area  = distance squared
4.  volume  = distance cubed
5.  time = normal definition of time.

6. density  = the amount of mass per unit volume.   
7. Pressure = force per unit area.

Now how we define force is the next step,  I called it resistance to movement,  but I'm not entirely happy with that,
I don't think this can be F=ma, or F=mv....   

Any ideas?

No need to reinvent the wheel entirely. I believe Force=mass x acceleration still works in the denpressure model. I may have to think about this a while.

No need to reinvent the wheel entirely. I believe Force=mass x acceleration still works in the denpressure model. I may have to think about this a while.

you are probably right. Your claim to fame is that you may have found the first and probably only, scientific principle that doesnt debunk denpressure.

  scepti would be so proud

scepti would be so proud

Absolute, 100% proven failure is pretty hard to achieve. Even denpressure had to get something right.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 08, 2016, 03:18:47 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 08, 2016, 03:09:34 PM

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

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.

You have claimed the results of the experiments were inconclusive. Care to elaborate? Why are they inconclusive? How do you explain the results?

I can't explain anything to you; you know nothing about the theory because you spent far too much time waiting to jump on it before you gave yourself a chance to gain any insight into it.
People like you will spend all your spare time parroting numbers and such of silly things like space fantasies and totally be devoid of using any logic on reality.

It doesn't matter how many different names you use, you still don't grasp it. lol

I know everything there is to know about the density-pressure theory commonly shortened to "Denpressure." Allow me to demonstrate what I know.

Denpressure refutes the unnecessary invented force of gravity. According to the model, density and pressure give objects the appearance of weight. This is caused by the stacked atmosphere, with heavier gases like Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide circulating at the bottom, and less dense gases like Hydrogen and Helium circulate toward the top. All of these gases exert force upon each other in all directions, but since the heavier particles have more weight and can therefore exert more energy upon the surrounding parties, they end up pushing the lighter particles with more force, effectively squeezing these particles to the top of the system. At the very top of the stack, the particles simply freeze into solids, forming an ice dome which completes the system.

Am I missing something?

I get confused about how you can have heavier and lighter particles, without gravity,  so weight needs to be replaced by something else,  can't be density since that carries an implied weight,  the closest I can come to anything that makes sense,  is all objects with mass have a resistance to being moved, some have more mass and interact with their neighbours more strongly either through friction or something akin to viscosity.

The more mass that gets squeezed into a small space the higher the "denspressure", and hence the more resistance to being moved.

It's closer to Aristotle than Newton.

You are getting closer and closer to understanding what's happening.
They key words you use are the RESISTANCE to being moved.
Many people fail to grasp my theory because they simply go way past it by going straight into gravity mode or Earth particle mode, etc and do not use the different theory on what connected matter is.

When I said that ALL matter is connected with no free space, I meant it as exactly that. Once that bit is grasped then there's no need to ponder up and down or pressures upon dense objects, because it's all there for those who can get top grips with it.
Like  I said before, Jane is closest to grasping it and you are one of a few who are slowly but surely getting to grips.
I know none of you accept it but the fact that you're looking into it for your own inquisitive minds, is enough to potentially take you into another realm of theories, without any global bias, hopefully.

According to your theory regarding the interconnectedness of all matter, a thermos should not function. If you read the Wiki article about James Dewar, you would know that he invented the vacuum flask.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask

 Do you deny a vacuum flask exists? Test it yourself. Go to walmart or Amazon and buy a thermos. Doesn't have to be brand name, just make sure it is labeled as a vacuum flask.

When it arrives, make soup. Make sure it is hot and steamy-nobody likes cold soup!! Test the temoperature before you pour it in the thermos. Pour your soup into the thermos. Check it periodically with a thermometer. Record your results.

Now, take a drill bit and bore a hole into the side (you should hear a rush of air as the near-vacuum equalizes).

Now make more soup, and make sure the soup reaches  the same temperature as before. Check the temperature at the same time intervals. Record your results.

According to your theory regarding the interconnectedness of all matter, a thermos should not function. If you read the Wiki article about James Dewar, you would know that he invented the vacuum flask.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask

 Do you deny a vacuum flask exists? Test it yourself. Go to walmart or Amazon and buy a thermos. Doesn't have to be brand name, just make sure it is labeled as a vacuum flask.

When it arrives, make soup. Make sure it is hot and steamy-nobody likes cold soup!! Test the temoperature before you pour it in the thermos. Pour your soup into the thermos. Check it periodically with a thermometer. Record your results.

Now, take a drill bit and bore a hole into the side (you should hear a rush of air as the near-vacuum equalizes).

Now make more soup, and make sure the soup reaches  the same temperature as before. Check the temperature at the same time intervals. Record your results.

You've went through all of that and have no clue how the flask works, do you?
Don't read up on it, just explain what you think is happening with that flask that is under atmospheric sea level conditions.
Let's see how smug you are.

It's simple really. A vacuum flask is actually two flasks, one placed inside the other. They are joined at the neck of the container. The larger flask has been partially evacuated, creating a near vacuum. This partial-vacuum greatly reduces the transfer of heat via conduction or convection.

If I understand your model correctly and there is no gaps between stuff ever.  Even in a very near vacuum.

Does the surface area of one molecule in a vacuum increase? 

If under your model it does a vacuum flask would not be that effective at reducing conduction.