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

Ok...I actually understand this concept now and have the hypothesis dynamics in my head and find it interesting rather it be true or false. I still have not understood why a vacuum would not be a proper testing method of this hypothesis, especially a hard vacuum. Sure, we could never preform a perfect vacuum, not even deep space is such a thing, but I would imagine the weight should change a certain amount.

Since scepti agrees with test number one I can perform this if you give me an idea of an acceptable psi level of the compressed air. I can run off one of the compressors and keep the flow even through a secondary regulator.

I also had a thought...would melting down a metal or material to its liquid form weighing before and after provide any conclusive evidence to your hypothesis?


Also, I had a large diesel generator in here not to long ago I had to fab some replacement parts for. Also had to do some work on the fuel system. It ran at 61,000 psi, the fuel was obviously just a atomized vapor at that pressure. You have to wear a suit and face/neck mask, and gloves that are like that of high voltage gloves to work on it. If there is even a slight break in even a connection port, the escaping fuel can easily pierce your skin and make it to your heart.

This type of pressure, surely the metal would absorb at least some portion of the fuel. Yes I know the fuel is more dense than air, yet under that type of pressure, and basically being a vapor, you get what I am saying.

Now along the lines of experiment 2:

I have an 80lb bag of concrete.  The concrete takes up .6 cubic feet=1036 cubic inches.  So .077lbs per cubic inch.

I have an 80ml tube of silicone sealant which weighs .24lb which takes up 4.88 cubic inches.  So .049lbs per cubic inch.

Silicone sealant is non porous.  Concrete is porous.  Shouldn't the concrete be lighter under this theory?  Are there other factors that are supposed to be involved here regarding the weight of an object?

I think Denpressure is pretty self-explanatory and very logical to say the least.

For instance, I saw on TV today a program about sharpshooters and it was talking about how the bullet makes an arched trajectory due to gravity. But that is incorrect. The bullet makes a curved trajectory due to Air Pressure. It's the air infront of the bullet that pushes it down.

Likewise, If you shoot the bullet straight up it's the air that slows it down, not gravity.

I think Denpressure is pretty self-explanatory and very logical to say the least.

For instance, I saw on TV today a program about sharpshooters and it was talking about how the bullet makes an arched trajectory due to gravity. But that is incorrect. The bullet makes a curved trajectory due to Air Pressure. It's the air infront of the bullet that pushes it down.

Likewise, If you shoot the bullet straight up it's the air that slows it down, not gravity.

The air pressure is the same all around the bullet.  Calculations please.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 03:45:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 02, 2016, 03:34:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:35:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 02, 2016, 10:58:41 AM

Imagine a block of Lead and a block of iron and a block of aluminum, all of equal size to the eye. 
We know that iron is heavier than aluminum and lead is heavier than iron.
So you're suggesting that lead repels/resists the atmospheric pressure than iron or aluminum?  How can that be?

Because the Lead, Iron and aluminium absorb different amounts of atmospheric pressure. It's trapped in some metals more than others as well as absorbed into some.
The trapped atmosphere is your magnets but we won't go into that.

Actually, metal foundries work very hard to make sure that no atmosphere is absorbed into their metals because most of the elements in the atmosphere make the metals weaker.  For example, when iron absorbs atmosphere, you get rust.

That depends on the metals.
You cannot keep out atmospheric pressure from probably any metals but you can go a long way into minimizing it; especially in soft metals like Lead and gold, etc.
You see, these metals are under or have been under severe pressure underground in liquid form. When forced up they become a solid but a soft solid due to their make up.

Up top, or closer, we have the metals we regularly use and we have to use a lot of energy to get the metals from the ground by friction or in basic terms, melting it out by furnace which makes it extremely expanded. From this point on it depends how it's cooled and how much pressure is applied during cooling, plus how many re-heats it gains. Etc etc.
Basically metals become more or less porous depending on how and where they were mined and by what means they were extracted to form what we know as the metals we see and use.
The list is long and complicated to actually go through so I'm sure you get my meaning.

Scepti, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. Take steel pipez on a pipeline. The materials running through the pipeline are at 1000's of lbs. psi. How pourous can the steel in the pipeline be?  I don't think there can be any air or any gas in the steel.

Pipelines are coated. They are shot blasted and epoxy coated, etc. Also it's not about big perforations like a tea bag in pipes and stuff but they would still be porous in a very minute way, just as glass is and most other materials that we don't really think about in that way.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:15:20 PM

Quote from: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 09:49:34 AM

Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?

The force pushing it back is the compression of air inside the syringe, then the water, aided by the push of atmospheric pressure upon the water.
Your near vacuum thought would not produce any force on its own, it merely creates that lower pressure against the higher pressure compression that you initially pushed..

Whatever. Do you accept that you'll get a cavity with tremendously lower atmospheric pressure? Like 1 tenth of what we have? Will then same object weigh less in this cavity?

Take a scale and measure it.

Ok...I actually understand this concept now and have the hypothesis dynamics in my head and find it interesting rather it be true or false. I still have not understood why a vacuum would not be a proper testing method of this hypothesis, especially a hard vacuum. Sure, we could never preform a perfect vacuum, not even deep space is such a thing, but I would imagine the weight should change a certain amount.

Since scepti agrees with test number one I can perform this if you give me an idea of an acceptable psi level of the compressed air. I can run off one of the compressors and keep the flow even through a secondary regulator.

I also had a thought...would melting down a metal or material to its liquid form weighing before and after provide any conclusive evidence to your hypothesis?


Also, I had a large diesel generator in here not to long ago I had to fab some replacement parts for. Also had to do some work on the fuel system. It ran at 61,000 psi, the fuel was obviously just a atomized vapor at that pressure. You have to wear a suit and face/neck mask, and gloves that are like that of high voltage gloves to work on it. If there is even a slight break in even a connection port, the escaping fuel can easily pierce your skin and make it to your heart.

This type of pressure, surely the metal would absorb at least some portion of the fuel. Yes I know the fuel is more dense than air, yet under that type of pressure, and basically being a vapor, you get what I am saying.

Why don't you try some of that stuff out and see what you come up with.

Quote from: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 08:32:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:15:20 PM

Quote from: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 09:49:34 AM

Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?

The force pushing it back is the compression of air inside the syringe, then the water, aided by the push of atmospheric pressure upon the water.
Your near vacuum thought would not produce any force on its own, it merely creates that lower pressure against the higher pressure compression that you initially pushed..

Whatever. Do you accept that you'll get a cavity with tremendously lower atmospheric pressure? Like 1 tenth of what we have? Will then same object weigh less in this cavity?

Take a scale and measure it.

Ok. I'll conduct the experiment. I just want to be sure it will be genuine from your point of view.
I'll take a syringe and will glue a piece of rubber or a spiral and some object in the following way:


I'm taking a syringe and pull it into transparent container with water.



Then I'll pull the end, so the spiral or rubber band should collapse. Correct?

Why don't you try some of that stuff out and see what you come up with.

Well the bottom part was more of a question than anything.

The middle part about taking a material to its liquid form was a question as well. If you thought bringing a solid to a liquid would prove anything. (remember this is your hypothesis, so I want to make sure I do not add nor subtract any context).

How accurate of a scale do you consider necessary? I don't have too much of a selection of them, but I have a couple that are relatively low read and tight tolerance. Also was wondering what you consider a needed amount of air pressure for test 1.

I am thinking drill a quick disconnect nipple into a piece of wood, metal, and something very light haven't decided yet. Run air pressure through it if I am understanding the test. Shit I am so tired I can't even think straight.


Edit...neutrino..did you just draw all that up? I like your way of thinking, action, not much bark.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 12:03:04 AM

Quote from: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 08:32:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 02, 2016, 02:15:20 PM

Quote from: neutrino on August 02, 2016, 09:49:34 AM

Actually getting chamber with low air pressure is pretty easy and obvious:
Take a syringe close the hose with wax, and, open it under water. Two things you will observe:
0) Water will not enter the syringe,
1) there will be force pushing the handle back (because there is near vacuum)

Is it KOSHER from FET point of view?

The force pushing it back is the compression of air inside the syringe, then the water, aided by the push of atmospheric pressure upon the water.
Your near vacuum thought would not produce any force on its own, it merely creates that lower pressure against the higher pressure compression that you initially pushed..

Whatever. Do you accept that you'll get a cavity with tremendously lower atmospheric pressure? Like 1 tenth of what we have? Will then same object weigh less in this cavity?

Take a scale and measure it.

Ok. I'll conduct the experiment. I just want to be sure it will be genuine from your point of view.
I'll take a syringe and will glue a piece of rubber or a spiral and some object in the following way:


I'm taking a syringe and pull it into transparent container with water.



Then I'll pull the end, so the spiral or rubber band should collapse. Correct?

Let's see what you come up with.

Babyhighspeed, yes I drew it. Thanks.

Scepti? I'm sorry, I just don't understand! I want you to tell me what are your expectations from such an experiment. I don't want to conduct the experiment and then you say: "Oh it's an illusion, it's the distortions and chromatic aberrations of the lens of your videocam"... etc etc..
Be man and define what should be the outcomes and how you would treat them!

BTW, I do have access to lab with extremely precise scales (0.0001 of a gram!) which I photograph and put a pic in this thread at the beginning. All my lab equipment as well as my 11" telescope is at your disposal. Let's experiment!!!

Babyhighspeed, yes I drew it. Thanks.

Scepti? I'm sorry, I just don't understand! I want you to tell me what are your expectations from such an experiment. I don't want to conduct the experiment and then you say: "Oh it's an illusion, it's the distortions and chromatic aberrations of the lens of your videocam"... etc etc..
Be man and define what should be the outcomes and how you would treat them!

BTW, I do have access to lab with extremely precise scales (0.0001 of a gram!) which I photograph and put a pic in this thread at the beginning. All my lab equipment as well as my 11" telescope is at your disposal. Let's experiment!!!

Sweet!!!! This is the kind of mentality I have been flapping my internet chops for!! I am excited! As I have offered before here I will make sure you know it is extended to you, my whole machine/fab shops are at your disposal.

Having scales of that sensitivity is sweet and will surely come in handy. One must be an electromagnet one?

You won't be creating a vacuum per say with the syringe test, but just a pocket of low pressure. However, from my understanding of the hypothesis that is all that would be required to perform the experiment.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 12:06:36 AM

Why don't you try some of that stuff out and see what you come up with.

Well the bottom part was more of a question than anything.

The middle part about taking a material to its liquid form was a question as well. If you thought bringing a solid to a liquid would prove anything. (remember this is your hypothesis, so I want to make sure I do not add nor subtract any context).

How accurate of a scale do you consider necessary? I don't have too much of a selection of them, but I have a couple that are relatively low read and tight tolerance. Also was wondering what you consider a needed amount of air pressure for test 1.

I am thinking drill a quick disconnect nipple into a piece of wood, metal, and something very light haven't decided yet. Run air pressure through it if I am understanding the test. Shit I am so tired I can't even think straight.


Edit...neutrino..did you just draw all that up? I like your way of thinking, action, not much bark.

Try all the things out that your mind can muster and let's see what comes of it. Don't look on it as an argument against me, look on it as a small step into finding out a reality, instead of the fantasy we've been told to swallow.
Do it regardless of what you think the Earth system is.

You've spent your life being told the stories and given the supposed math and reasons for the one you adhered to. Put it on the back burner and look into alternates. If none satisfy you then you have no more need to challenge and you can go on your merry way in life in the knowledge that you're happy with your lot.

I will continue to push my way through for the alternate because I'm more than sure there is the alternate to the indoctrinated one.

Anyway, let's see what happens.

Babyhighspeed, yes I drew it. Thanks.

Scepti? I'm sorry, I just don't understand! I want you to tell me what are your expectations from such an experiment. I don't want to conduct the experiment and then you say: "Oh it's an illusion, it's the distortions and chromatic aberrations of the lens of your videocam"... etc etc..
Be man and define what should be the outcomes and how you would treat them!

BTW, I do have access to lab with extremely precise scales (0.0001 of a gram!) which I photograph and put a pic in this thread at the beginning. All my lab equipment as well as my 11" telescope is at your disposal. Let's experiment!!!

Ok, let's experiment. You know what your first one is, so let's see what occurs with this. I've got a quite a few for you to perform if you have the equipment.
One step at a time and let's see the results.
I'm not going to just dive in and leave myself open to being twisted out of context, so I need to see what's going on. If you understand that then go ahead and perform. If not, then fair enough.
It's up to you but remember, you should be doing this for yourself mainly and not just as a way to shout "nah nah scepti, you're wrong" or whatever.
I've had this crap with Sokarul, so let's see what you are willing to do, if you're serious.

Archimedes' principle indicates that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces and it acts in the upward direction at the centre of mass of the displaced fluid. Archimedes' principle is a law of physics fundamental to fluid mechanics. It was formulated by Archimedes of Syracuse.

Precision weighings require a correction when the object being weighed is light, has a large volume, and is made under atmospheric pressure. The object being weighed displaces a certain amount of air. This creates a buoyancy force that is equal to the weight of the volume of air displaced. It is the same effect that occurs if you make a weighing when the object is weighed under water, only smaller because the density of air is less than the density of water. If the analytical balance is a double beam tray balance it is actually the DIFFERENCE in the volume of the object and the volume of the weights in the other pan. On an electronic balance the buoyancy is still present but there are no counter weights. The correction is of the order of a couple of milligrams, but in precision weighing this is not negligible. There are various designs and techniques to cancel this correction by keeping the volume of the sample constant and doing a weight determination by difference, but these techniques are not commonly applied except in high precision determinations where high accuracy is required.

https://stab-iitb.org/newton-mirror/askasci/gen01/gen01228.htm

This is really interesting, also one of the most constuctive threads I've seen here.

Your syringe experiment seems really solid neutrino.

I think Denpressure is pretty self-explanatory and very logical to say the least.

Not if you know anything at all about physics, it isn't.

For instance, I saw on TV today a program about sharpshooters and it was talking about how the bullet makes an arched trajectory due to gravity. But that is incorrect. The bullet makes a curved trajectory due to Air Pressure. It's the air infront of the bullet that pushes it down.

Why would air in front of the bullet push it down?  It seems that the air above the bullet should push it down.

Likewise, If you shoot the bullet straight up it's the air that slows it down, not gravity.

Actually, both air and gravity will slow the bullet down.  It's not a one or the other situation.

Scepti, I think a good test for the 3 experiment would be on low pressure.  In an environment in which the air pressure is lowered the weight of the object would decrease because less air is being pressed on it.  Is my understanding correct?

Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?

Would measuring the difference between the force required to push and lift an object work?

Submarines have pressure pushing against their entire hull, not just the top.  At least that is what we are told.  Maybe an experiment measuring the pressure exerted on an object could shed some light on the matter.  If it is equal then someone can refer to the first experiment I suggested.

How about releasing a fluid in a chamber and seeing what happens?  It should eventually be denser towards the bottom or an explanation is needed to explain why the atmosphere gets denser at lower altitudes.

I will agree with those that said this is the most constructive thread I have seen.

Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?

I said this earlier, and he just responded with calling me an idiot for not understanding.

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 11:10:49 AM

Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?

I said this earlier, and he just responded with calling me an idiot for not understanding.

Yeah I think we need some clarification on that one. 

In a similar thread :

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 01, 2016, 06:02:12 PM

Your sentence doesn't really make sense as it's written. 

If they are being "crushed" (increased pressure) at the bottom, then something has to be pulling/pushing them down, otherwise atmospheric pressure would be equal from the surface to the dome.

The push comes directly from the molecules in the stack, under each other, in resistance to the one above.

Imagine a group of performers making a human pyramid. They start off as, say, 10 - and then they move in to stack 9 on top of the 10, the 8 on top of the 9 and so on and so on until you get one person stood at the top.

Tell me which person is under the least pressure and tell me who is under the most.
By discussing this we can sort out exactly how this Earth atmospheric system works. Anyone can join in and grasp it but I warn you. Failure to even attempt to grasp it and you'll be overlooked, because I'm not going to waste my time on people who simply do not wish to at least seriously look into it.

According to this analogy what matters is how many people are standing on you in this pyramid.  No amount of people stacked to my side matter.  In this example if you're lying down you're going to be able to stack a lot more people than if you were standing.

Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 01:17:20 PM

Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.

All very convenient, but no measurements to prove.

Air seeps, how?

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 01:17:20 PM

Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.

All very convenient, but no measurements to prove.

Air seeps, how?

Through the porousness of objects.  This is something Experiment 2 can also test for.

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 01:17:20 PM

Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.

If I'm understanding this correctly then it seems like there's two separate effects going on then.

1.  The atmospheric human pyramid.

2.  Air permeating an object to make it lighter?

This inside a balloon analogy I'm not so sure about it.  If you were inside a pressurized chamber you'd feel the pressure evenly distributed all around you.  I don't think it would prefer a specific direction.  I think we can demonstrate that just by observing a tire inflating.  It doesn't prefer a particular side.

Considering that humans are non permeable I think this experiment is still valid then as the human body wouldn't be affected by effect #2.  Well I guess there are our lungs holding air, so maybe the experiment should be conducted as we breathe out?

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 01:43:25 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 01:17:20 PM

Some more thinking outside of the box here:

Denspressure keeps us planted on the ground by a stack of air molecules pushing down on us.  If you had a rigid structure overhead, like a house, we should have less denspressure on us right?  So there's an easy experiment, see if you can jump higher indoors or outdoors.

It's not purely like that. I've had this discussion before: if you're not in an airtight room (and for the purposes of this discussion just assume they don't exist: as Scepti's pointed out, he believes air seeps into objects to alter their weight, so no airtight chamber could feasibly exist) then the net pressure everywhere is much the same. Presumably in the lack of perfect barriers for air, the stacks would essentially continue, though I'm not certain on that case.
The analogy he used last time was to imagine we're inside a structure with one flat surface, and a balloon-type surface covering it. Inflate it, you'd get a dome shape, and if you were inside on the flat surface as it inflated, you'd be pushed against that surface.

All very convenient, but no measurements to prove.

Air seeps, how?

Through the porousness of objects.  This is something Experiment 2 can also test for.

Units of porousness please.

Scepti, I think a good test for the 3 experiment would be on low pressure.  In an environment in which the air pressure is lowered the weight of the object would decrease because less air is being pressed on it.  Is my understanding correct?

This is a little bit more tricky because of expansion of molecules inside an object, as well as scales put into the same environment.
It's still worth trying but it requires patience with results and especially objects used.

You see, it's not just a case of air pressed onto it it's a case of the object pushing into it but we can't do that because we would have it all inside the chamber.
It's a really tricky thing.

Think about this.

A window clamp placed on a window will simply fall off if just placed against the window. However, if that lever is pushed down to evacuate air from the rubber seal, it will clampo to the window....but why?

We know that the atmosphere is around 14.7 psi around that clamp but it was also 14.7 psi inside the seal before the lever was pushed down. Because of this we know there's an equilibrium.
However,  if the lever is pushed down and atmosphere is evacuated from the seal, that pressure evacuated now adds to the pressure back onto that clamp and pushes it hard onto that window.
Now people can argue that the pressure isn't much but it clearly is when you can pick up a real heavy window pane with them.

The issue is we can't measure this on any scale plate but we know that the clamp is pushed hard against the window.

It's hard to explain fully without using analogies to try to get people to understand it all. Jane has come the closest to understanding it all and a  few others are getting the grasp.
You seem to be well on track for grasping it all, so I hope you'll see where issues arise in trying to outright prove it all. We need to keep pushing this with all kinds of thoughts.

Jane could join in as well and any other serious person who wishes to delve into it without bias.

Quote from: sandmanMike on August 03, 2016, 09:38:47 AM

Scepti, I think a good test for the 3 experiment would be on low pressure.  In an environment in which the air pressure is lowered the weight of the object would decrease because less air is being pressed on it.  Is my understanding correct?

This is a little bit more tricky because of expansion of molecules inside an object, as well as scales put into the same environment.
It's still worth trying but it requires patience with results and especially objects used.

You see, it's not just a case of air pressed onto it it's a case of the object pushing into it but we can't do that because we would have it all inside the chamber.
It's a really tricky thing.

Think about this.

A window clamp placed on a window will simply fall off if just placed against the window. However, if that lever is pushed down to evacuate air from the rubber seal, it will clampo to the window....but why?

We know that the atmosphere is around 14.7 psi around that clamp but it was also 14.7 psi inside the seal before the lever was pushed down. Because of this we know there's an equilibrium.
However,  if the lever is pushed down and atmosphere is evacuated from the seal, that pressure evacuated now adds to the pressure back onto that clamp and pushes it hard onto that window.
Now people can argue that the pressure isn't much but it clearly is when you can pick up a real heavy window pane with them.

The issue is we can't measure this on any scale plate but we know that the clamp is pushed hard against the window.

It's hard to explain fully without using analogies to try to get people to understand it all. Jane has come the closest to understanding it all and a  few others are getting the grasp.
You seem to be well on track for grasping it all, so I hope you'll see where issues arise in trying to outright prove it all. We need to keep pushing this with all kinds of thoughts.

Jane could join in as well and any other serious person who wishes to delve into it without bias.

How much pressure might be evacuated, do you mean air?

Something just occured to me. This theory is that the atmosphere is holding us down by pressing on us right?

So shouldn't a brick weigh less turned long wise up? It has less surface area pressing downward to be acted on right?

This is where people need to understand the stack system.
The best way to describe the stack system is to turn ourselves upside down and try to swim  to the bottom of a deep swimming pool.
Now imagine that the swimming pool is above you. Now walk in it. Now jump as hard as you can into it and see how far you get before you get pushed back up like a cork.

Think about this when you jump in the air from a standing start and walking along a flat surface.

Back to your brick.
Have you ever wondered why it's hard to keep standing?
Have you ever wondered why it's much easier to lay down?

The reason is because the atmosphere is being pushed out of the way of your standing mass and your head and shoulders are compressing it and forcing it down the sides of your body.
The thing is it only clamps you at the sides but at the top it's pushing back onto you and forcing your body into the ground but your feet and leg/body muscles stop it. The thing is, it's not without consequence, which is aching feet and tiredness.

Laying down spreads your body over a large surface area and even though you displace the same atmospheric pressure, you do so over your entire body .

The brick is the same.

To make you understand, just imagine you're in bed and covered with a heavy blanket. You feel comfortable enough laid under it but try and stand up with that blanket hanging down from your head and shoulders.