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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 158992 Views
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3660 on: February 11, 2019, 05:52:43 AM »
i did read it.
point out the strawman arguements
Not listening to a word anybody said about how vacuum chambers would work for one.

Vacuum chambers evacuated to near nothing - ok, how would this be determined under denpressure?
"feather doesnt' flutter proves there is little no air.
i could put a mouse in there and it would die."
How does this demonstrate what you claim it does under denpressure? The former, to me, just indicates a lack of a force, while the latter need only mean there's not enough oxygen, which if you got to know how denpressure molecules behave under low pressures really isn't that surprising.

If you can't justify bit under denpressure you're not refuting it, you're just assuming it's not the case.

the whole premise of the creator of denp claims molecules expand like gobbstoppers to crush and push and push and crush and friction grip and other nonsense words.

maybe you should try following the threads.

but the crux is his theory is done away with whenever pressure vs weight is discussed.

his claim that 9.8m/s/s is not a real thing.
  - he was shown a vacuum chamber showing things falling at a predictive rate.
    - his claim is molecules expand like gobstoppers under evacuation.
     - yet air resistance goes null.
his response was that it is impossible and fake news.
that's a solid argument right there, jane.

his claim that atmospheric pressure causes the appearance of weight.
  - he was shown that items can weigh in a different pressures.
    - he has no model for how downward force penetrates through the floors of a house or a pressure vessel.
      - he has yet to provide a diagram that shows more than denp= denp.
        - he claims he has experiments that he can't show us.
we're to believe him "because", but all other real world proofs are fake news.

where's the strawman?
if i'm failing at debating, he's failing at proofing.
he's got two responses:
1. fakenews.
2. it is because it is.

why not rag on him.
look at the bs he's posted for 40pgs so far since i've joined.
with another 50pg in the ICBM.
as a mathmetician you should be super insulted he's shown zero numbers.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3661 on: February 11, 2019, 06:10:55 AM »
Even apart from the "piezoelectric effect" the claim that "Everything is related to atmospheric pressure in order to work" is simply idiotic and if you cannot see and admit that run away and play were-pigeons or whatever"!
Great. Go show that, or shut up. Your post is utterly pointless.

the whole premise of the creator of denp claims molecules expand like gobbstoppers to crush and push and push and crush and friction grip and other nonsense words.

maybe you should try following the threads.
I'm well aware of that. You might notice that you neglect to show any chain of actual inference in your posts.

Quote
  - he was shown a vacuum chamber showing things falling at a predictive rate.
    - his claim is molecules expand like gobstoppers under evacuation.
     - yet air resistance goes null.
his response was that it is impossible and fake news.
that's a solid argument right there, jane.
Personally I'd be impressed if his repsonse was any more than "What the hell are you talking about?" That's a bunch of random disconnected statements. Why should anyone care? You haven't given implications. Ok, his model of molecular expansion somehow means there's no rate at which things fall, and we can measure when air resistance goes to nothing which would not be... that's just a ramble. You haven't got an argument. You haven't even got a statement.

Quote
his claim that atmospheric pressure causes the appearance of weight.
  - he was shown that items can weigh in a different pressures.
    - he has no model for how downward force penetrates through the floors of a house or a pressure vessel.
      - he has yet to provide a diagram that shows more than denp= denp.
        - he claims he has experiments that he can't show us.
we're to believe him "because", but all other real world proofs are fake news.
So you're just ignoring me again? Got it. Explained the in-house pressure above, you evaded. Your diagram obsessions feels more like distraction than any contribution.
No one's asking you to believe him. Jesus christ this should not be so hard. You don't have to believe him. Lack of given evidence is a valid reason to reject what someone says. The problem is when you start making claims about what he's saying. You should have at least the slightest clue what you're on about, otherwise it's meaningless. If you are going to claim that denpressure is at odds with observations of vacuum chambers, for example, you pick an observation, and then you sit down and shut up and see if he responds with an explanation of the observation, or with 'no, that doesn't happen.' Which, more often than not, he doesn't do, he tends to point out factors that normally wouldn't be considered. If he does say "No, that doesn't happen," then that's when you provide actual evidence of that happening.

All this running around and rambling with zero understanding and actively avoiding acknowledging answers to your questions achieves nothing except to give the impression denpressure is such a strong model you need to lie to debate it. Do you really believe that?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3662 on: February 11, 2019, 06:34:29 AM »
he says no that doesn't happen every time and goes on about magic.
are we not all reading the same words?
you being british should also have a fit.

and yes
i'm paraphrasing.
no need to go through it all again.
he LOVES to repeat the ball on a string on a stick/ hand.
or the sponges.
always sponges.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3663 on: February 11, 2019, 06:58:48 AM »
he says no that doesn't happen every time and goes on about magic.
are we not all reading the same words?
you being british should also have a fit.

and yes
i'm paraphrasing.
no need to go through it all again.
he LOVES to repeat the ball on a string on a stick/ hand.
or the sponges.
always sponges.
Paraphrasing and misrepresenting aren't the same thing.

Yep, he uses certain analogies to explain things. If he's repeating them, it's a good indication that you should actually take the time to read them and understand them.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3664 on: February 11, 2019, 07:30:33 AM »
Maybe if you have some insider information you can contribute instead of hand waving.


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3665 on: February 11, 2019, 08:58:04 AM »
Maybe if you have some insider information you can contribute instead of hand waving.
Did. You ignored it.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg2145190#msg2145190

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3666 on: February 11, 2019, 09:07:05 AM »
Yes i read the compendium.

What i meant was, if our comprehnsion of his abuse of english is incorrect, go ahead and correct it.

Or else we're all playing "hughs on first".

If you just want to keeping hand waving.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24036
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3667 on: February 11, 2019, 10:03:19 AM »
If I have a bell jar vacuum chamber and rotate it horizontally, mounting the base to a wall. Evacuate the air, how does the bell jar stay pressed against the base on the wall and not fall to the ground and smash?
Because the wall is your foundation now.

How did the stacking molecules realize they needed to push horizontally to keep the bell jar pushed against the base on the wall rather than pushing down to smash it into the ground? In other words, how did they figure out I made a new foundation for something and accept the challenge and react accordingly?
It's not a case of figuring out. If you push against atmosphere to allow the lowering of pressure inside the bell jar that pressure is immediately added to the crush on that bell jar, which uses any solid foundation as it's resistance to that crush and hence, the effect of pushing to the wall, because the horizontal atmosphere has no direct flow past it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24036
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3668 on: February 11, 2019, 10:06:14 AM »
If I have a bell jar vacuum chamber and rotate it horizontally, mounting the base to a wall. Evacuate the air, how does the bell jar stay pressed against the base on the wall and not fall to the ground and smash?
Because the wall is your foundation now.

Now Iíve read most of what youíve written about denpressure and still find it hard to understand how you hold on to that idea like a bulldog on a steak......and here is why.

The industrial revolution started as you know in the mid 1700s. What started it was the discovery of turning chemical energy into mechanical, coal into work done. It also generated a huge interest in all things to do with heat engines,, and to fully understand how these machines worked and the theory behind them. Boyle and his laws discovered eighty or so years before were pretty fundemental to the development of the steam engine in the mid to late 1700s. Others built on this knowledge like Jacques Charles and Gay-Lussac.  The outcome was a refinement and improvement of all types of heat engines as the science behind them were better understood.

The way in which the expansion of gasses relate to changes in temperature and pressure and the best way to then extract energy and ultimately produce work is now extremely well understood and has been responsible for building the economies of all the major industrial nations.

.....and then there is you and your ideas that are at odds with over 200 years of science and engineering as well as the way in which every heat engine ever made works. Even your own car engine works despite what you say about how gasses behave.

Do you never stop and think for a moment then look around you and see the world and how it works, contrary to what you believe.

Our understanding of how gasses behave under different conditions was incremental, built on experimentation and observation. You on the other hand have produced this idea, you call denpressure out of nowhere basec on no more than a dubious set of beliefs!

Do you never stop and think that you may be wrong?
Like I told you earlier. Denpressure easily explains what you think it doesn't.

Give me an example and I'll tell you how and why it does.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3669 on: February 11, 2019, 10:08:03 AM »
If I have a bell jar vacuum chamber and rotate it horizontally, mounting the base to a wall. Evacuate the air, how does the bell jar stay pressed against the base on the wall and not fall to the ground and smash?
Because the wall is your foundation now.

How did the stacking molecules realize they needed to push horizontally to keep the bell jar pushed against the base on the wall rather than pushing down to smash it into the ground? In other words, how did they figure out I made a new foundation for something and accept the challenge and react accordingly?
It's not a case of figuring out. If you push against atmosphere to allow the lowering of pressure inside the bell jar that pressure is immediately added to the crush on that bell jar, which uses any solid foundation as it's resistance to that crush and hence, the effect of pushing to the wall, because the horizontal atmosphere has no direct flow past it.
What is the horizontal atmosphere and flow from where to where?  Pressure is added, numbers please that we can measure to verify.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24036
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3670 on: February 11, 2019, 10:17:55 AM »
If I have a bell jar vacuum chamber and rotate it horizontally, mounting the base to a wall. Evacuate the air, how does the bell jar stay pressed against the base on the wall and not fall to the ground and smash?
Because the wall is your foundation now.

How did the stacking molecules realize they needed to push horizontally to keep the bell jar pushed against the base on the wall rather than pushing down to smash it into the ground? In other words, how did they figure out I made a new foundation for something and accept the challenge and react accordingly?
It's not a case of figuring out. If you push against atmosphere to allow the lowering of pressure inside the bell jar that pressure is immediately added to the crush on that bell jar, which uses any solid foundation as it's resistance to that crush and hence, the effect of pushing to the wall, because the horizontal atmosphere has no direct flow past it.
What is the horizontal atmosphere and flow from where to where?  Pressure is added, numbers please that we can measure to verify.
No need for equations. Understanding what's being explained will aid you much better.
Before I actually answer your question, can you accept an analogy by me using water as atmospheric pressure in order to allow you to see why the bell jar attached horizontally to a wall?

If you come back and tell me water is different to air then I'll just bin you and be done with you. Your choice.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3671 on: February 11, 2019, 10:25:25 AM »
Nonumbers needed.
But a diagram would help.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3672 on: February 11, 2019, 10:31:22 AM »
If you just want to keeping hand waving.
I gave you an answer. Stop accusing me of handwaving, say what your issue actually is with what I said, or you're just straight-up not giving me enough information to even guess at what your question is, let alone what the answer is.

I've so far answered your 'How does it stack indoors?' question (ignored), your vacuum chamber question (ignored)... At least acknowledge that, even if you find them insufficient. Expecting me to guess at what your problem is, is the hallmark of someone who just doesn't care about actually understanding, so tell me, what's the point?

Nonumbers needed.
But a diagram would help.
If you can't understand it in words, you're not going to be able to understand it in numbers.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3673 on: February 11, 2019, 10:35:02 AM »
You can understand him?

The "crush on the push in the grip of friction, its all about sponges" makes sense to you?

Diagram if you got what he said.

Because he appears to speak english, but on closer inspection...

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3674 on: February 11, 2019, 10:40:25 AM »
Ok jane
Lets formulate the last 125pg into a few coherent thoughts because it was not answred.
Its true you said words.
But they didnt andwer the question.

Im in my house (2storey).
Ground floor.
How does the upper atm stack penetrate through the ceiling, then 2nd flr, to push me dow?

If yhe movelues are stacking, and rely on the push on push, how is transmitted through the floor?

Yet to be answered.
4yrs.
125+ posts.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3675 on: February 11, 2019, 10:43:21 AM »
You can understand him?

The "crush on the push in the grip of friction, its all about sponges" makes sense to you?

Diagram if you got what he said.

Because he appears to speak english, but on closer inspection...
Context. Learn the damn model. This is not complicated. You got the link, it's on you at this point. If you won't even provide context, I'm done. Good riddance.

Ok jane
Lets formulate the last 125pg into a few coherent thoughts because it was not answred.
Its true you said words.
But they didnt andwer the question.
Jesus christ. I directly linked you to a post where that question was answered. I asked you in my last post to say what the problem was. You yet again utterly ignore every word I have ever said.
You are pathetic. Just. Christ. It is a waste of time to talk to you.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.msg2145190#msg2145190

Learn the model so you'll understand the basic principles of what's going on, the most basic step with any of this, and then read that. If you don't want to learn the model, don't ask questions about it. Bye!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24036
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3676 on: February 11, 2019, 10:49:10 AM »
Kabool: You repeatedly refuse to even try to understand it. Every time an explanation is put forward you immediately try to ridicule rather than just be honest and say you don't understand.

If you were interested you would keep asking until you learned what you were stuck on.
You will never understand any of it unless you're willing to see it differently to what your own adhered to model is.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3677 on: February 11, 2019, 10:54:45 AM »
Despite what you two think, i did take time to read through it.
And despite what you two think, everyone here got the point.

What you two fail to understand is our line of questioing is becasue it directly and easily proven to be incorrect observation on how the world works.

Air stacks.
Mocleues are gobbstoppers.
Crushing and pushing.
We got it.
We re all actually reasonably smart.

Posibbly
Quite possibly.
If you could draw it out or use normal english.
It would help immrensley.


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3678 on: February 11, 2019, 11:33:07 AM »
What you two fail to understand is our line of questioing is becasue it directly and easily proven to be incorrect observation on how the world works.

Air stacks.
Mocleues are gobbstoppers.
Crushing and pushing.
We got it.
We re all actually reasonably smart.

Posibbly
Quite possibly.
If you could draw it out or use normal english.
It would help immrensley.
So does it not make sense, or do you just think it doesn't work? You're alternating between the two ridiculously fast.
If the former, again, reread and work it out rather than this vagueness. if the latter, why the hell are you asking for a diagram rather than giving an actual argument?

Waste of time.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3679 on: February 11, 2019, 11:43:40 AM »
Because force diagrams and loadong diagrams are what im familoar with.

1.
It s confusign because it takes pg and pg of changing of wording to figure out what scepti is on about.
He doesnt speak english.

2.
Not that i dont think it works.
I propsoed a situation where the result is onctrary to what he described.
Either the description is wrong or the theory is wrong.
He needs to clarify.

3.
Drawign is not irrelevant.
You see any physics books without a drawing?
If he cant draw it out, hes a wasste of time.
Would you live in an apt bldg that wasnt drawn out?

*

Stash

  • 5740
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3680 on: February 11, 2019, 11:51:18 AM »
If I have a bell jar vacuum chamber and rotate it horizontally, mounting the base to a wall. Evacuate the air, how does the bell jar stay pressed against the base on the wall and not fall to the ground and smash?
Because the wall is your foundation now.

How did the stacking molecules realize they needed to push horizontally to keep the bell jar pushed against the base on the wall rather than pushing down to smash it into the ground? In other words, how did they figure out I made a new foundation for something and accept the challenge and react accordingly?
It's not a case of figuring out. If you push against atmosphere to allow the lowering of pressure inside the bell jar that pressure is immediately added to the crush on that bell jar, which uses any solid foundation as it's resistance to that crush and hence, the effect of pushing to the wall, because the horizontal atmosphere has no direct flow past it.
What is the horizontal atmosphere and flow from where to where?  Pressure is added, numbers please that we can measure to verify.
No need for equations. Understanding what's being explained will aid you much better.
Before I actually answer your question, can you accept an analogy by me using water as atmospheric pressure in order to allow you to see why the bell jar attached horizontally to a wall?

If you come back and tell me water is different to air then I'll just bin you and be done with you. Your choice.

Sure. You mount the base of the vacuum against the wall of a pool just below the surface of the water. You're holding the bell jar against the base and it has no water in it, just air. Turn on the pump and evacuate the air. Release your grip. What happens to the bell jar and why?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3681 on: February 11, 2019, 11:51:49 AM »
Not that i dont think it works.
I propsoed a situation where the result is onctrary to what he described.
Either the description is wrong or the theory is wrong.
He needs to clarify.
No, you just ignored the answer. I'm done.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3682 on: February 11, 2019, 12:48:09 PM »
Done what?
You didnt start, clarify, translate, or present anything.
Done nothing.
How to hand wave:
Hand wave left.
Hand wave right.
End at start and accomplish nothing.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3683 on: February 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM »
I can explain it all using denpressure.
Give me any scenario and I'll explain it. What I won't do is play around with equations that are not needed in order to explain.
We should be able to ask for generic explanations which always hold, rather than needing completely different explanations for different scenarios.

A simple example is two balloons, one filled with CO2 the other with helium.
The CO2 filled balloon falls while the helium filled one rises.
But they occupy the same volume, it is just one is filled with CO2 the other with helium.
If pressure was all there was, they would both be pushed the same.

Then there are plenty of examples I have already provided.
Like weighing a sealed container. Then evacuating the air from it so it is displacing more air, and then weighing it again.
According to you with displacing air causing weight, it should weigh more, but instead it weighs less.

Then there are mercury barometers, which if there is no weight from gravity and instead only comes from air pressure there is no reason the mercury shouldn't fill the tube entirely. If you want to appeal to a small amount of air trapped inside, then it should be dependent upon the size and geometry of the tube, and independent of orientation, with the same length of tubing filled regardless of if it is upright, upside down, sideways or at some random angle. Instead we observe the height from the fluid outside to the level of the fluid inside the tube is dependent upon air pressure and not on the size or geometry of the tube, and it is that height, not the portion of the tube filled.

You have been repeatedly asked to explain simple things without contradicting prior explanations, and have repeatedly failed to do so.

To understand magnetism you have to understand why a magnet can be demagnetised by certain happenings, like heat and shock.
And none of that requires the atmosphere.

Because the wall is your foundation now.
And why doesn't the same thing happen when you just place an object against the wall?

It's not a case of figuring out. If you push against atmosphere to allow the lowering of pressure inside the bell jar
But you don't need to push against the atmosphere to do that. You can pump it into a pressure vessel instead.

If you push against atmosphere to allow the lowering of pressure inside the bell jar that pressure is immediately added to the crush on that bell jar, which uses any solid foundation as it's resistance to that crush
Yet if you do the same thing with a completely sealed object (e.g. a bell jar with a base) then it doesn't stay stuck to the wall.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3684 on: February 11, 2019, 01:45:55 PM »
If I have a bell jar vacuum chamber and rotate it horizontally, mounting the base to a wall. Evacuate the air, how does the bell jar stay pressed against the base on the wall and not fall to the ground and smash?
Because the wall is your foundation now.

Now Iíve read most of what youíve written about denpressure and still find it hard to understand how you hold on to that idea like a bulldog on a steak......and here is why.

The industrial revolution started as you know in the mid 1700s. What started it was the discovery of turning chemical energy into mechanical, coal into work done. It also generated a huge interest in all things to do with heat engines,, and to fully understand how these machines worked and the theory behind them. Boyle and his laws discovered eighty or so years before were pretty fundemental to the development of the steam engine in the mid to late 1700s. Others built on this knowledge like Jacques Charles and Gay-Lussac.  The outcome was a refinement and improvement of all types of heat engines as the science behind them were better understood.

The way in which the expansion of gasses relate to changes in temperature and pressure and the best way to then extract energy and ultimately produce work is now extremely well understood and has been responsible for building the economies of all the major industrial nations.

.....and then there is you and your ideas that are at odds with over 200 years of science and engineering as well as the way in which every heat engine ever made works. Even your own car engine works despite what you say about how gasses behave.

Do you never stop and think for a moment then look around you and see the world and how it works, contrary to what you believe.

Our understanding of how gasses behave under different conditions was incremental, built on experimentation and observation. You on the other hand have produced this idea, you call denpressure out of nowhere basec on no more than a dubious set of beliefs!

Do you never stop and think that you may be wrong?
Like I told you earlier. Denpressure easily explains what you think it doesn't.

Give me an example and I'll tell you how and why it does.

But it doesnít.....and thatís the funny part as every thing you say contradicts conventional real world beliefs. I think your just saying that because you clearly donít understand any of the gas laws, based on your earlier comments.

You never did explain how you saw those molecules you were on about! Did you ever tell the companies who manufacture vacuum chambers that they are making a fake product?

Go read what each of the gas laws  state, then think about what you believe, and youíll find a gulf as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Itís totally unbelievable that you think, in regards to denpressure , that it explains anything in the real world and is in any way aligned with the gas laws! Go and read what you have written about denpressure then try and square it with any of the gas laws and letís see how you get on!


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3685 on: February 11, 2019, 01:51:16 PM »
Lonely - It was already concluded that all of hvac, scuba, abd bbq industry was fakenews.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3686 on: February 11, 2019, 02:02:12 PM »
Lonely - It was already concluded that all of hvac, scuba, abd bbq industry was fakenews.

Have you told them......I think they might like to know. I would also pass that on to Jane as I hear she is off on a diving holiday that includes lots of bbq..ing.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3687 on: February 11, 2019, 02:04:03 PM »
Amazingly it takes a little while to explain a model from scratch.
Yes, especially when you aren't actually explaining it.

Spamming the most basic thing in such a patronising manner doesn't achieve anything.
When he repeatedly fails to actually answer them it sure seems to show his model is wrong.

Short version, imagine stacking some balls in a pyramid shape, then sliding a thin sheet in the middle of that pyramid between the balls, horizontally.
But the roof isn't acting as some thin sheet of paper.
It would be acting as a solid steel beam. That will change the shape, pushing the balls above out of the way.
More importantly, it isn't just that solid steel beam. Instead it is supported on the sides.
Then the question becomes how do the balls above push down on the balls below, even though they are sitting on the steel beam rather than the balls below.

The unsupported paper is more like an object in mid air, where it is getting pushed down by the balls above, but also supported by the balls below, just like the air would be. But that means they don't fall.

The question, then, should be what causes that structure and why it acts to cause gravity. The two are equivalent questions.
And that has been asked of him repeatedly, with the closest he has gotten to an answer of why it stacks being effectively because of gravity.
As for them being equivalent, that depends highly upon how you try to explain it. Causing the structure can be fundamentally different to why it acts to make things fall.
He repeatedly appeals to the stack to try and explain why things fall, meaning the stack needs to be there to explain why things fall and thus the cause of the structure is separate.

Go learn the model and come back rather than expecting Scepti to do all the work.
And how are people meant to magically learn the model, when the explanations they are looking for simply don't exist?

Aside from how, in context, he doesn't necessarily seem to be saying it does
No, he is saying it does. There is no context that would change that.

how about you take the radical step of providing some evidence that there is no connection rather than just asserting?
And why don't you take the radical step of providing some evidence that there is no connection to pineapples.
Just what would you consider as evidence for no connection?

Or how about we do the more rational thing and allow the person asserting that everything is connected to and relies upon the atmosphere to provide the evidence?

You say, and then proceed to demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of the concept.
Not understanding and not accepting are fundamentally different.

Seriously. You need to learn the difference between calling out a bad argument against a model
But that isn't what you are doing.
You are objecting to decent arguments against the model.

My understanding is that measured weight will always be the same because resistive forces on the scales will be comparably reduced
And what causes that restive force to be reduced?

You need an observation that he can't explain.
And on object on scales in a vacuum chamber is an example of such an observation.
He has no explanation, just a baseless assertion that it all magically works out.

In order to have an explanation he needs more than to just assert that the resistive forces magically change to cancel out the change in weight. He would need to explain how these resistive forces change. Especially as it doesn't actually cancel perfectly, and objects weigh slightly more in reduced pressure, and less in greater pressure.

If he's repeating them, it's a good indication that you should actually take the time to read them and understand them.
Or it is a good indication he is ignoring the problems with it.
Strange how you think us repeating things means we aren't paying attentions and instead are ignoring what he says and lying, whereas him repeating things also means we aren't paying attention.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3688 on: February 11, 2019, 02:24:59 PM »
All goes to the double std.
We have to provide proof beyond proof yet he cant provide a decent diagram.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 24036
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3689 on: February 11, 2019, 11:01:18 PM »
I can explain it all using denpressure.
Give me any scenario and I'll explain it. What I won't do is play around with equations that are not needed in order to explain.
We should be able to ask for generic explanations which always hold, rather than needing completely different explanations for different scenarios.

A simple example is two balloons, one filled with CO2 the other with helium.
The CO2 filled balloon falls while the helium filled one rises.
But they occupy the same volume, it is just one is filled with CO2 the other with helium.
If pressure was all there was, they would both be pushed the same.
This is what you get for refusing to pay attention.

A C02 balloon and a helium balloon are two gases that hold different masses.
Think of the skinned gobstopper effect.
These two end up with different layers to they gobstopper end procurt among a multitude of atmospheric gaseous/fluid gobstopper masses with more layers.

This is why I asked for people to understand my model before they simply dive in.
This is why I asked for people to get to the basics first before we deal with this stuff.

This is why I ask people to understand the stack.
Unfortunately when I try to use analogies some people take them as actual material reality as if I actually think gobstoppers are singular molecules in themselves.

And people wonder why I ask them to start at the beginning and not to move too fast and get lost.
You're lost, Jack if you cannot understand this after all this time.

I'll be more than happy to explain this to people who actually want to learn from my side. I'd explain it to Jack but I never explain anything to him as he clearly states in every post, so it's hard to keep explaining anything.
Yet here I am trying to give him a chance.