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

My suggestion:

Let permeability p = the amount of air an object can absorb/the non gaseous mass of that object.  A ratio.

example.  Ice cream is 40% air.  Therefore p=.4

Now let's define the other effect of Denspressure:

Stack pressure s = the distance between the top of an object and the top of the atmosphere * the surface area exposed to the top of this object.

So we have weight = s * p.

Now before you tell me my equation sucks let me remind you it is currently the only equation that describes Denspressure.

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.

Take a look at a centrifuge for separation of liquids and solids.
It works because the force created on the spin pushes the atmosphere from the elements and makes them sink.

Place a block of wood in water and if its porous enough, it will float. Place a lead weight onto that wood and let it be forced to the bottom of a deep pool and leave it.
If left long enough it will have most of its atmosphere forced out and eventually stay rooted to the bottom of the pool after the lead is taken away.

Now imagine weighing that wood before and after is was sunk?

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.

The only change inside would be a small expansion of molecules due to the heating of the inner of your house due to heat of people and maybe central heating, etc.
You create a low pressure inside and you can see this by opening your front and back doors.
You can see the force of a pressure change when a door slams into your face.

Pretty strong, right?
However, it's only minor but can be more forceful, especially in the event of a back draft as firemen would call it.

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.

Yeah, this is what I was saying.

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.

That is because the idiot trolls haven't started their destructive bs.

Would there be any mileage in examining the behaviour of lighter gases? Presumably gases essentially would become part of a stack, hence why lighter gases like helium rise etc. Might just be related to experiment 1, but if we create a chamber (airtight under the RE model, perhaps not so much according to denpressure, but still decently effective at keeping gas inside, which we can ascertain by various well-known chemistry tests by, say, keeping a lit flame nearby outside) and put an object on a set of scales within it, then would altering the composition of the air/stack around said object alter the weight we read?
It's partly down to psi, but my thinking is that if weight is down to the effort needed to displace air, then if air is made more dense by the higher presence of a heavier gas, for example, then the necessary effort would increase. Thus, even if the composition of the stack is only altered for a neighbourhood around an object, the pressure ought to be similarly altered.

Seems related to experiment 1 like I said, though possibly more unwieldy. (If nothing else though, examples of how the models vary can aid understanding).

As far as raw numbers go, would an inflated balloon be an effective way to gauge them? If it's filled with air, then presumably the only increase in weight measured of an inflated balloon vs an empty balloon would be down to the change in volume? In that case, would that be an effective gauge of what force is needed to deal with a certain volume (as the composition and density and volume of the balloon free of air wouldn't have changed)? From that we could gain denpressure-relevant measurements of density for each object.
I'm assuming that the behaviour of air relative to the stack in this case doesn't alter, any more than it would for air in a room, so the air present within the balloon serves a similar purpose to that present in a porous object. Let me know if I've misunderstood.
I'll admit to not being a huge fan of the demand-for-numbers arguing, much more beneficial to get the theory down and understood before anyone starts plugging in values, but if nothing else it might be a way to make Inquisitve do something for once.

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?

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.

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

Understand the units of pressure are mass/area.  Like lbs/sq inch.  You cannot use the term in any other way.

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

Please explain more.

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

Please explain more.

The gist seems to be that the force exerted by denpressure is down to the fact that we displace air. It takes a certain amount of force to do that, so there's an equal and opposite reaction on us. We push the upwards-stacked air, and it pushed back. The swimming pool analogy is a good one to get this idea across: just imagine standing on your head (assuming uniform density of the water, if we're being picky). To fully submerge yourself, whether horizontal or vertical, displaces exactly the same amount of water. As such, exactly the same amount of pressure would act on the body.
If you've ever been in a pool, you know the water pushes you up: and yet it's easier to float if you lie on your back than stand up, because when lying the upwards/downwards pressure is spread out.

I'll admit to not being sold on denpressure as a viable model, but it's just silly to claim it can't answer questions which it definitely can.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Surface area is a factor I believe, but more when it comes to the distribution of force. The total amount of force strictly depends on the volume of air displaced (hence why porous objects would displace less and so exert less force). It's quite neat, actually.
Analogy's analogy, it's never going to be perfect. I will say I don't believe Scepti adheres to the model of molecules you're likely familiar with, but even so bricks don't need to be cemented together to stack.

Would there be any mileage in examining the behaviour of lighter gases? Presumably gases essentially would become part of a stack, hence why lighter gases like helium rise etc. Might just be related to experiment 1, but if we create a chamber (airtight under the RE model, perhaps not so much according to denpressure, but still decently effective at keeping gas inside, which we can ascertain by various well-known chemistry tests by, say, keeping a lit flame nearby outside) and put an object on a set of scales within it, then would altering the composition of the air/stack around said object alter the weight we read?
It's partly down to psi, but my thinking is that if weight is down to the effort needed to displace air, then if air is made more dense by the higher presence of a heavier gas, for example, then the necessary effort would increase. Thus, even if the composition of the stack is only altered for a neighbourhood around an object, the pressure ought to be similarly altered.

Seems related to experiment 1 like I said, though possibly more unwieldy. (If nothing else though, examples of how the models vary can aid understanding).

As far as raw numbers go, would an inflated balloon be an effective way to gauge them? If it's filled with air, then presumably the only increase in weight measured of an inflated balloon vs an empty balloon would be down to the change in volume? In that case, would that be an effective gauge of what force is needed to deal with a certain volume (as the composition and density and volume of the balloon free of air wouldn't have changed)? From that we could gain denpressure-relevant measurements of density for each object.
I'm assuming that the behaviour of air relative to the stack in this case doesn't alter, any more than it would for air in a room, so the air present within the balloon serves a similar purpose to that present in a porous object. Let me know if I've misunderstood.
I'll admit to not being a huge fan of the demand-for-numbers arguing, much more beneficial to get the theory down and understood before anyone starts plugging in values, but if nothing else it might be a way to make Inquisitve do something for once.

To be fair, I think all kinds of avenues can be tried.
This topic should be more about finding the truth of experiments or potentials of it, rather than discounting it.
I'm as rigid as hell on this. I'm very strong willed on it and will not discount anything that can potentially make a point.

This topic should be about us all looking for facts or close to facts - or gaining a strong theory among many instead of just a extreme minority, if possible, because I'm sure many want some truth's if at all possible.

You have a good logical brain on you, Jane, as do some others on here. Let's all use the logic and the basics to sift through it all, no matter what thoughts come to mind.
The more people willing to think and experiment, the more chance we have of showing something for it.

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 03:01:52 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

Please explain more.

The gist seems to be that the force exerted by denpressure is down to the fact that we displace air. It takes a certain amount of force to do that, so there's an equal and opposite reaction on us. We push the upwards-stacked air, and it pushed back. The swimming pool analogy is a good one to get this idea across: just imagine standing on your head (assuming uniform density of the water, if we're being picky). To fully submerge yourself, whether horizontal or vertical, displaces exactly the same amount of water. As such, exactly the same amount of pressure would act on the body.
If you've ever been in a pool, you know the water pushes you up: and yet it's easier to float if you lie on your back than stand up, because when lying the upwards/downwards pressure is spread out.

I'll admit to not being sold on denpressure as a viable model, but it's just silly to claim it can't answer questions which it definitely can.

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Surface area is a factor I believe, but more when it comes to the distribution of force. The total amount of force strictly depends on the volume of air displaced (hence why porous objects would displace less and so exert less force). It's quite neat, actually.
Analogy's analogy, it's never going to be perfect. I will say I don't believe Scepti adheres to the model of molecules you're likely familiar with, but even so bricks don't need to be cemented together to stack.

I think it's a literal breath of fresh air that you actually grasp it. I know you're not sold on it all but the fact that you're making massive inroads, gives me hope that you won't abandon it and will keep digging at it; because I believe that if you do and see it as the basics, I believe you will start to see a lot more things in a different light. I hope so anyway.

There's a few others on here that are getting to grips, so I'm pleased about that.

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.

You can move through water can't you?
All you're doing is moving through less dense water.

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.

It's a shame such a simple a simple idea destroys "air pressure is gravity" yet iwitness and the little kid will keep going on and on.

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?

Magician's trick. 

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?

Quote from: markjo on August 03, 2016, 03:34:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.

You can move through water can't you?
All you're doing is moving through less dense water.

Liquid water molecules aren't connected.  In your terms, the water molecules are stacked on each other, but they are free to slide around.  That's why you can move through water, but can't move through objects where the molecules are connected (solid objects).

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.

Scepti do you mean thing like this:

I'm sorry, there are many trivial things I don't know (not a native English speaker).

If yes, I'll explain you the 'my' way how it works. Usually when you push the clamp (?) against glass, you let the air out of it's inner cavity but since it is elastic, it tries to restore its previous shape, thus creating a bigger cavity. But there is no air. So the atmosphere pushes it back.
The misconception is that initially (when you do not pull the clamp) it has little force that keeps it in-place. However when you try to pull it then you create a bigger cavity and there is more surface that potentially could collapse back, so the force strengthens. It's like a tension force - the more you pull the more it resists to pulling.

There is a bug in experiment 2: the wood piece and probably the sponge will float on a water surface.

EXPERIMENT 2:

The Density of an Object is determined on how much Atmosphere it can absorb.  If the atmosphere is replaced with another material or it is squished to remove the atmosphere then it will weight the same in units to volume as other objects at the same volume.

....
....
....

To test this experiment we'll need a control and different materials that weigh different amounts but are roughly the same volume.

What you'll need:
4+ Measuring Containers, all need to be the same size and able to measure precisely.
Metal - Same size as wood and sponge
Wood
Sponge
Water
Scale

Instructions:
Place each object in a Container
Weigh each container and record results

Pour water into each container to the same measurement level.  (The water should cover each item completely with some extra room above the object).
Leave containers overnight to allow for water to go into the porous areas of each object and remove the atmosphere.

Add any water needed to each container so that each container's water level matches.  This will ensure that each container is holding the same volume of material.
Weigh each container and record results.

Hypothesis:
By leaving the water in overnight this should allow all of the objects to absorb the water and remove any atmosphere inside of the object.  Because weight is determined on density all of the densities of these objects should match and each container will now weigh the same amount.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?

Scepti doesn't believe in vacuum chambers. He claims all videos of vacuum chambers are fake. Chalk it up to another entire industry that must be liars and crooks for the FE model to even be feasible.

 I have a different problem with den pressure.

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?

The external atmosphere is pushed away which allows the atmosphere inside the chamber to expand into the lower pressure created by that pump push.
All molecules are under pressure and under different friction/agitation dependent on energy applied. (we won't go into this part because it will just get confusing).

Basically molecules expand against each other and the more there is, the less they can expand against each other, unless they are allowed to do so by a force that gives them freedom to expand.
A pump attached to a chamber will turn equilibrium of pressure externally and internally into added pressure externally due to the pump pushing back the atmosphere to allow the expansion of molecules to take their place in that external atmosphere. And this amount adds extra pressure onto the chamber that is also weakened by the expansion of molecules inside.

A simple analogy is to imagine a container full of sponge balls that is sat in the middle of another massive container of sponge balls.
Ok, the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber again st the compression of sponge balls out of that container.
From this point on if you picture the sponge ball, you can see that there is no free space. Just sponge balls compressed into each other.

Add energy like a pump and push sponge balls away from the container, it compresses them more externally but leaves the sponge balls inside the container to decompress a little, allowing some to take their place externally, meaning there are less sponge balls inside the container but more added externally from that container to now take their place as added external pressure against it, assuming we seal the exit from this point.

This is your so called vacuum but as you can see - or imagine - it's nothing of the sort and is only a lower internal pressure but still full of sponge balls that are still all attached, only less compressed.

This is why you can never evacuate a chamber - ever.
You could only evacuate enough (assuming the strongest container, ever and the strongest every pump) until all of the molecules inside cease to vibrate under pressure or change of pressure. This is when you would have no more expansion of molecules onto molecules to create anymore push out of the container.


I think a few will get this. Maybe you will.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:39:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 03, 2016, 03:34:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

That makes no sense whatsoever. 

How exactly are air molecules connected? 

What shape are these molecules? 

How do they fit together? 

How can we move through the air if all of the molecules are connected?

When molecules are connected, you get a solid object, not a gas.

You can move through water can't you?
All you're doing is moving through less dense water.

Liquid water molecules aren't connected.  In your terms, the water molecules are stacked on each other, but they are free to slide around.  That's why you can move through water, but can't move through objects where the molecules are connected (solid objects).

Slide around is a good thought  but the issue is still the same. All molecules expand and contract into each other and never create a true free space, just a bigger energetic compression by expansion.

A thought for you: Picture all the molecules as washing up bubbles. Take a close look at washing up bubbles and try and count how many different sizes you see.
The truth is they're uncountable because there's just too many different stages of expansion going on and that's only what you can see due to reflection of light off of them.

Imagine inside each bubble there are the same things going on with even smaller compressed or expanded molecules. And within them we go again and again and so on.
We simply do not have the eyes nor the tools to realistically go that far, although we will be told we do.
Anyway that's another argument.

Basically this is just what we know as the simplest forms of gas/liquids.

The more dense stuff is simply more compressed matter within matter within matter and so on and so on depending on where they sit in Earth or what energy was applied, which again is another argument and will deviate this one.

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 04:12:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?

The external atmosphere is pushed away which allows the atmosphere inside the chamber to expand into the lower pressure created by that pump push.
All molecules are under pressure and under different friction/agitation dependent on energy applied. (we won't go into this part because it will just get confusing).

Basically molecules expand against each other and the more there is, the less they can expand against each other, unless they are allowed to do so by a force that gives them freedom to expand.
A pump attached to a chamber will turn equilibrium of pressure externally and internally into added pressure externally due to the pump pushing back the atmosphere to allow the expansion of molecules to take their place in that external atmosphere. And this amount adds extra pressure onto the chamber that is also weakened by the expansion of molecules inside.

A simple analogy is to imagine a container full of sponge balls that is sat in the middle of another massive container of sponge balls.
Ok, the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber again st the compression of sponge balls out of that container.
From this point on if you picture the sponge ball, you can see that there is no free space. Just sponge balls compressed into each other.

Add energy like a pump and push sponge balls away from the container, it compresses them more externally but leaves the sponge balls inside the container to decompress a little, allowing some to take their place externally, meaning there are less sponge balls inside the container but more added externally from that container to now take their place as added external pressure against it, assuming we seal the exit from this point.

This is your so called vacuum but as you can see - or imagine - it's nothing of the sort and is only a lower internal pressure but still full of sponge balls that are still all attached, only less compressed.

This is why you can never evacuate a chamber - ever.
You could only evacuate enough (assuming the strongest container, ever and the strongest every pump) until all of the molecules inside cease to vibrate under pressure or change of pressure. This is when you would have no more expansion of molecules onto molecules to create anymore push out of the container.


I think a few will get this. Maybe you will.

In your analogy, you cannot keep removing air from a chamber because of the lack of interior pressure will cause the chamber to rupture? You didn't clearly explain what will happen if you keep trying to remove "sponge balls" from the vacuum chamber.

Why would you seal the exit? Wouldn't you want exterior pressure to be normalized? It's not like we're trying to rupture the chamber here.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 02:27:07 PM

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.

Scepti do you mean thing like this:

I'm sorry, there are many trivial things I don't know (not a native English speaker).

If yes, I'll explain you the 'my' way how it works. Usually when you push the clamp (?) against glass, you let the air out of it's inner cavity but since it is elastic, it tries to restore its previous shape, thus creating a bigger cavity. But there is no air. So the atmosphere pushes it back.
The misconception is that initially (when you do not pull the clamp) it has little force that keeps it in-place. However when you try to pull it then you create a bigger cavity and there is more surface that potentially could collapse back, so the force strengthens. It's like a tension force - the more you pull the more it resists to pulling.

Yes, that's on a small scale but it's not exactly how you're saying.

Here's a better example and I'll explain it.




Above are the Magdeberg hemispheres. Now like the window clamp, these work in the same way, except they are clamped to each other.

The atmosphere is allowed to expand out of the spheres by a pump, as I explained a little earlier.
This causes the atmospheric pressure to gain in compression upon those spheres by the amount you have just allowed to evacuate from them. It's basically clamped back by the extra push trying to crush the hemispheres (now a sphere) back to equalisation of pressure because an energetic action (pump) was made and the reaction cannot equalise due to the tap being turned off.

Those spheres could not be pushed apart by horses each side. And to think that those spheres still contain atmospheric pressure, only it's a more expanded (lower pressure) less amount of molecules inside because the rest of them are outside adding to the pressure upon it and that's the difference of the strength acting on it.

Scepti doesn't believe in vacuum chambers. He claims all videos of vacuum chambers are fake. Chalk it up to another entire industry that must be liars and crooks for the FE model to even be feasible.

I do believe in the chambers. I don't believe in vacuums on Earth. It's that simple - and neither should you. It's not about lying, it's about logical common sense.
 

I have a different problem with den pressure.

Den pressure theory accepts the existence of a firmament, or dome, that acts as a barrier between this world and the next. This barrier supposedly traps all the air in our atmosphere, as opposed to gravity. There is an issue with this model. Air will fill any container you put it into and exert equal pressure on all sides of said container. Furthermore, air pressure remains constant throughout the enclosure. However this does not happen on earth. On earth, air pressure and elevation correlate. Some force is pushing all of these air particles toward the ground. Den pressure theory does not account for the downward force.

If you thoroughly read up you'll see it's explained.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 11:56:57 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 04:12:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?

The external atmosphere is pushed away which allows the atmosphere inside the chamber to expand into the lower pressure created by that pump push.
All molecules are under pressure and under different friction/agitation dependent on energy applied. (we won't go into this part because it will just get confusing).

Basically molecules expand against each other and the more there is, the less they can expand against each other, unless they are allowed to do so by a force that gives them freedom to expand.
A pump attached to a chamber will turn equilibrium of pressure externally and internally into added pressure externally due to the pump pushing back the atmosphere to allow the expansion of molecules to take their place in that external atmosphere. And this amount adds extra pressure onto the chamber that is also weakened by the expansion of molecules inside.

A simple analogy is to imagine a container full of sponge balls that is sat in the middle of another massive container of sponge balls.
Ok, the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber again st the compression of sponge balls out of that container.
From this point on if you picture the sponge ball, you can see that there is no free space. Just sponge balls compressed into each other.

Add energy like a pump and push sponge balls away from the container, it compresses them more externally but leaves the sponge balls inside the container to decompress a little, allowing some to take their place externally, meaning there are less sponge balls inside the container but more added externally from that container to now take their place as added external pressure against it, assuming we seal the exit from this point.

This is your so called vacuum but as you can see - or imagine - it's nothing of the sort and is only a lower internal pressure but still full of sponge balls that are still all attached, only less compressed.

This is why you can never evacuate a chamber - ever.
You could only evacuate enough (assuming the strongest container, ever and the strongest every pump) until all of the molecules inside cease to vibrate under pressure or change of pressure. This is when you would have no more expansion of molecules onto molecules to create anymore push out of the container.


I think a few will get this. Maybe you will.

In your analogy, you cannot keep removing air from a chamber because of the lack of interior pressure will cause the chamber to rupture? You didn't clearly explain what will happen if you keep trying to remove "sponge balls" from the vacuum chamber.

Why would you seal the exit? Wouldn't you want exterior pressure to be normalized? It's not like we're trying to rupture the chamber here.

Take your time and read what I said.

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 04:12:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 03, 2016, 03:25:13 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 03, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Jane on August 03, 2016, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 03, 2016, 02:57:10 PM

The weight of the brick should therefore be different, depending on the top surface area.

No, it shouldn't. Scepti's point makes sense, if you think of it in terms of essentially inverse-buoyancy. Volume matters more than area.

If we're looking at the human pyramid effect then the surface area seems pretty important.  Maybe inverse-buoyancy factors into it but that sounds like a different effect. 

Scepti made a point of describing the air like a blanket but the problem with that analogy is that air molecules aren't connected.

Air molecules are connected. Everything is connected. There is no free space, ever.

There are no random particles like people are told are in space. That's basically nonsense and should be seen for that.

Interesting.  So in your view, what exactly is happening when a vacuum chamber is being evacuated?

The external atmosphere is pushed away which allows the atmosphere inside the chamber to expand into the lower pressure created by that pump push.
All molecules are under pressure and under different friction/agitation dependent on energy applied. (we won't go into this part because it will just get confusing).

Basically molecules expand against each other and the more there is, the less they can expand against each other, unless they are allowed to do so by a force that gives them freedom to expand.
A pump attached to a chamber will turn equilibrium of pressure externally and internally into added pressure externally due to the pump pushing back the atmosphere to allow the expansion of molecules to take their place in that external atmosphere. And this amount adds extra pressure onto the chamber that is also weakened by the expansion of molecules inside.

A simple analogy is to imagine a container full of sponge balls that is sat in the middle of another massive container of sponge balls.
Ok, the sponge balls inside the container are stopping the container from being crushed because they are compressed in that chamber again st the compression of sponge balls out of that container.
From this point on if you picture the sponge ball, you can see that there is no free space. Just sponge balls compressed into each other.

Add energy like a pump and push sponge balls away from the container, it compresses them more externally but leaves the sponge balls inside the container to decompress a little, allowing some to take their place externally, meaning there are less sponge balls inside the container but more added externally from that container to now take their place as added external pressure against it, assuming we seal the exit from this point.

This is your so called vacuum but as you can see - or imagine - it's nothing of the sort and is only a lower internal pressure but still full of sponge balls that are still all attached, only less compressed.

This is why you can never evacuate a chamber - ever.
You could only evacuate enough (assuming the strongest container, ever and the strongest every pump) until all of the molecules inside cease to vibrate under pressure or change of pressure. This is when you would have no more expansion of molecules onto molecules to create anymore push out of the container.


I think a few will get this. Maybe you will.

Well this is a lot to consider.  In the mean time what exactly are these molecules made of.  In Chemistry we learn about the basic structure of electronics and how these bind together to form molecules.  Under this system there's a huge amount of empty space between any two molecules.  Also, as we understand it, a molecule cannot be shrunk or stretched.  Chemistry doesn't allow it.  You would just end up destroying the molecule.

One more question, off topic really.  Where are you from? I'm guessing English is your second language?