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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 235934 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28074
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #150 on: August 04, 2016, 09:09:29 AM »
I have read every single post in this thread, nobody has yet mentioned a firmament.
It all depends on what you deem as a firmament. I've seen many things mentioned on those lines b ut it depends on how you see it all.

The problem I have with FE is it is SUPPOSED to be based upon empirical evidence, or evidence one can see and measure with one's own senses.Have you ever seen a firmament? How do you know it exists?
It's a big Earth no matter which way people look at it or pretend to know it all. Empirical evidence is hard to come by for ALL scientific theories to do with a lot of the stuff we're expected to accept as the absolute truth with no real in your face physical proof. Admit this or don't but all it will do is create senseless arguments of tit for tat and it's not worth the energy.

The same thing can be said about ait molecules. Have you seen gas molecules expand in a low pressure system?
No. I simply use basic common sense and logic too deduce what's happening by physically seeing larger matter doing exactly that.


Don't pretend like you have an electronic microscope, so face facts. You have never measured molecules expanding in low pressure, so how can you possibly make such a claim?
Neither have you measured them to argue any point with me.
To see anything through a microscope means you have to negotiate atmosphere or gases of molecules or whatever you want to call them.
So how does anyone see molecules if they have to look through them to see?

You also have not explained the fact that air pressure is constant on all sides (including the bottom) so where does the downward force come from?
From the upward force emanating from the energy from the ground. It stacks.

What is keeping all the air compressed at sea level? Shouldn't the atmosphere press against the firmament at the same pressure?
Is the man at the top of the human pyramid under the same pressure as the man on the bottom?
See if this video helps.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28074
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #151 on: August 04, 2016, 09:12:20 AM »
Ok, so, experiment pitch for consideration from OP, as it seems to have Scepti's stamp of approval.

Equipment
Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

Method
1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Predictions
Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.
That seems fair enough.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #152 on: August 04, 2016, 09:44:01 AM »
It's a big Earth no matter which way people look at it or pretend to know it all. Empirical evidence is hard to come by for ALL scientific theories to do with a lot of the stuff we're expected to accept as the absolute truth with no real in your face physical proof. Admit this or don't but all it will do is create senseless arguments of tit for tat and it's not worth the energy.

I admit that many scientific theories lack empirical evidence. That is why we have a peer-review system in place. If somebody in the scientific community wishes to make a claim, they need to test it. Others need to be able to duplicate their procedure and also duplicate the findings. It is a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and it allows us to understand things that not all of us have the ability or resources to observe. If every school could afford an electron microscope, then you yourself could observe air molecules and the effect pressure has on them. Luckily for you, these experiments have already been done countless times. For some reason, you reject the scientific community. You deny the conclusions that thousands of smarter, better equipped and more experienced scientists have come to. In place of all their effort, you would have me believe in your thought experiments that have no testing to prove them. Admit that logically, I should assume that you have no idea what you are talking about

No. I simply use basic common sense and logic too deduce what's happening by physically seeing larger matter doing exactly that.

Like I said above, before you make such claims you need to actually test them in a way that we all can test. You can't just come up with a model in your mind and expect the world to be that way.

Neither have you measured them to argue any point with me.
To see anything through a microscope means you have to negotiate atmosphere or gases of molecules or whatever you want to call them.
So how does anyone see molecules if they have to look through them to see?

I don't have to personally look into an electron microscope. Thousands of others have already done it. They ALL came to the same conclusion. Just because you don't know how an electron microscope works doesn't mean I have to personally perform an experiment for you. Let's remember here that YOU are the one at odds with scientific research. If you want to tell me something you better have some sort of research to back it up besides "it makes sense in my brain so it must be true"

From the upward force emanating from the energy from the ground. It stacks.

Sorry according to your model, the stack goes all the way up to the top of the firmament? Then why is there more downward pressure than upward? Shouldn't it be equalized in this model?

Is the man at the top of the human pyramid under the same pressure as the man on the bottom?
See if this video helps.

If there was a ceiling above that man, then there should be. According to the FE model, the atmosphere goes all the way to the firmament. Therefore, upward pressure should equal downward pressure. Another problem with using this video as an analogy is the fact that humans are solid, and therefore behave differently than gasses would. Gasses expand to fill any container, maintaining equal pressure on all sides. That is, of course, another force is acting upon said gasses. In an RE model, gravity accounts for this downward force. The FE model does not account for this downward force.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #153 on: August 04, 2016, 09:49:02 AM »
I admit that many scientific theories lack empirical evidence. That is why we have a peer-review system in place.
Who is we?? 
YOU have a peer review system in place to shout down and bully honest people. 

Peer review is bullying for stupid people.  Only stupid dishonest people appeal to argumentatum populatum


If there was a ceiling above that man, then there should be. According to the FE model, the atmosphere goes all the way to the firmament.
Stop lying. 
The FE "model" is simple:  The earth is flat. 

Everything else (the firmament, air pressure, blah blah blah) is outside the FE model. 
Why are you here discussing denpressure? and not trolling in some other physics forum?? 

What other field of physics disputes den pressure???? 

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12843
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #154 on: August 04, 2016, 09:55:31 AM »
I admit that many scientific theories lack empirical evidence. That is why we have a peer-review system in place.
Who is we?? 
YOU have a peer review system in place to shout down and bully honest people. 

Peer review is bullying for stupid people.  Only stupid dishonest people appeal to argumentatum populatum


If there was a ceiling above that man, then there should be. According to the FE model, the atmosphere goes all the way to the firmament.
Stop lying. 
The FE "model" is simple:  The earth is flat. 

Everything else (the firmament, air pressure, blah blah blah) is outside the FE model. 
Why are you here discussing denpressure? and not trolling in some other physics forum?? 

What other field of physics disputes den pressure????

Gentlemen, if you wish to attack each other over this there is a thread for that: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.0

On this thread let us argue in the form of experiments.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #155 on: August 04, 2016, 10:01:13 AM »
Ok, so, experiment pitch for consideration from OP, as it seems to have Scepti's stamp of approval.

Equipment
Set of sensitive scales
Decent-sized balloon
Compressed air (optional)

Method
1. Ensure balloon is empty, and weigh.
2. Inflate balloon (ideally with compressed air, or with care: inhaling only to the mouth and exhaling) and weigh.
3. (Optional) If compressed air was not used, let air out of balloon directly onto scales, and place balloon down, noting down weight in case moisture/saliva was added.

Predictions
Under the denpressure model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh less than the deflated balloon in step 1 and step 3 due to increased buoyancy.
Under the gravity model, the inflated balloon ought to weigh more than the deflated balloon, as the air inside it is caught and included.
If no change is detected, the experiment is inconclusive. It may simply be the scales weren't sensitive enough to detect the buoyancy or added weight.
That seems fair enough.
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #156 on: August 04, 2016, 10:06:28 AM »
Who is we?? 

"We" being the people who exist in the realm of cooperation and reason. The peer review system is based upon testable facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Scientists can be bullies, but by critiquing each other's methods we get closer and closer to actual truth. If you have no data to back your claims (like FE theorists) you can expect to be laughed out of the room, and rightfully so.


Stop lying. 
The FE "model" is simple:  The earth is flat. 

Everything else (the firmament, air pressure, blah blah blah) is outside the FE model. 
Why are you here discussing denpressure? and not trolling in some other physics forum?? 

What other field of physics disputes den pressure????

The firmament is a pivotal part of the den pressure theory, don't pretend otherwise.

Also thanks for addressing NONE of the points I was making. Instead you call me a bully (for presenting nothing but facts in a cordial manner) and you tell me to take my truths elsewhere. Do you honestly have ZERO rebuttal to any of the claims I have made about den pressure? If not, I suggest you leave this discussion. At least Scepti addresses my points. At least I respect him for thinking critically and trying to come up with his own answers. You're no better than a squabbling child with a broken toy.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #157 on: August 04, 2016, 10:07:09 AM »
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #158 on: August 04, 2016, 10:18:46 AM »
Gentlemen, if you wish to attack each other over this there is a thread for that: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67541.0

On this thread let us argue in the form of experiments.

I made a response to that thread almost 24 hours ago and nobody has challenged it yet. I came here because I want to offer my views on the denpressure theory and actually have my views addressed.

*

JerkFace

  • 11175
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #159 on: August 04, 2016, 10:22:19 AM »
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.014 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 10:30:24 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #160 on: August 04, 2016, 10:27:58 AM »
1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  estimate 810mm  so air inside is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 km/m3

So if the inflated baloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.024 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.024*1300 - 0.024*1225 = 31.2 - 29.4 = approximately 1.8 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.
Yep, does sound more realistic, I just wasn't increasing the pressure as Inquisitive, as per usual, was asking for things he could easily look up. Litre of air seemed irrelevant to the balloon case.

Look forward to hearing the results, and glad you have an air compressor. That ought to remove a lot of the potential for skewed data.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12843
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #161 on: August 04, 2016, 10:30:21 AM »
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.024 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation

I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #162 on: August 04, 2016, 10:31:40 AM »

Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.
[/quote]

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.014 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation
[/quote]

Godspeed, friend. I agree with your methods and the conclusions you draw. Long live the scientific method!!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #163 on: August 04, 2016, 10:39:18 AM »
I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.
Likely need a fair big scale, too. Balloon's probably more practical.

*

JerkFace

  • 11175
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #164 on: August 04, 2016, 10:43:32 AM »
What would you expect 1 litre of air to weigh?
Assuming typical pressure/temperature etc, I make it about 1.3g.

1.225 kg/m3    at 760mm  inside the balloon pressure is higher,  best estimate I can find is 810mm,  and burst at 850mm, the air inside the balloon is more dense because of the higher pressure,  I estimate about 1.3 kg/m3

So if the inflated balloon is about 300 mm diameter,   that equates to a volume of 0.024 0.014 m3,   

So the weight gain of the inflated balloon should be 0.014*1300 - 0.014*1225 = 18.2 - 17.2 = approximately 1 grams heavier when inflated.

Given all the variables involved,  the type of balloon material, the changes in temperature,  the size of the balloon inflated,  the above is just a rough estimate.

I have an aircompressor and a set of scales that is accurate to 0.001 grams,  if no-one else does it, I'll get a balloon and do the experiment tomorrow.

Conclusion,  I predict the inflated balloon will be heavier by approximately 1 gram.

EDIT: Corrected volume calculation

I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.

These are precision laboratory scales, with a resolution of 0.001 grams, and a maximum of 200 grams,   the aircompressor weighs a few hundred kg,  sorry.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12843
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #165 on: August 04, 2016, 10:46:03 AM »
I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.
Likely need a fair big scale, too. Balloon's probably more practical.

The average air compressor weighs about 50 pounds, should fit on a shipping scale without any trouble.  Trying to measure the weight difference in something the size of a balloon is a bit problematic for a couple reasons.  It's a low volume of air.  The shape of the container changes as you add air to it.  It's more vulnerable to any movements in the surrounding air affecting the measurements.

Using the air compressor itself as the balloon solves all of these problems.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41774
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #166 on: August 04, 2016, 10:52:18 AM »
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.
Are air molecules the only molecules that expand, or can liquid and solid molecules expand too?  Why doesn't a block of wood expand when put into a vacuum chamber if it has air molecules trapped inside it?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #167 on: August 04, 2016, 10:53:56 AM »
I suggest an easier route.  Put the air compressor on the scale and plug it in.  You'll have an easier time getting a good reading assuming your scale can handle the weight.
Likely need a fair big scale, too. Balloon's probably more practical.

The average air compressor weighs about 50 pounds, should fit on a shipping scale without any trouble.  Trying to measure the weight difference in something the size of a balloon is a bit problematic for a couple reasons.  It's a low volume of air.  The shape of the container changes as you add air to it.  It's more vulnerable to any movements in the surrounding air affecting the measurements.

Using the air compressor itself as the balloon solves all of these problems.

You could even weigh it on a normal bathroom scale used for human weight. Once fully compressed there should be enough air weight to make a difference. Another bonus is the constant surface area of the compressor.

*

neutrino

  • 635
  • FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #168 on: August 04, 2016, 10:58:15 AM »
Rayzor,

Good I will retest your results in my lab too. Tomorrow we have shabbat and hence I'll be in the lab only on Sunday.
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #169 on: August 04, 2016, 11:00:50 AM »
You could even weigh it on a normal bathroom scale used for human weight. Once fully compressed there should be enough air weight to make a difference. Another bonus is the constant surface area of the compressor.
That's a disadvantage, really. if we're being fair, we ought to give denpressure a chance, and the denpressure model predicts that the larger surface area with no added mass (beyond air) would increase buoyancy and decrease weight. The better experiment's always one where evidence can be in favour or opposed to, rather than just opposed to. This way, as well, it'll be more striking whichever happens.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28074
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #170 on: August 04, 2016, 11:04:16 AM »
I admit that many scientific theories lack empirical evidence. That is why we have a peer-review system in place. If somebody in the scientific community wishes to make a claim, they need to test it. Others need to be able to duplicate their procedure and also duplicate the findings.
 It is a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and it allows us to understand things that not all of us have the ability or resources to observe.
Duplicating something is fine if it was done in the first place. Much of the scientific stuff of theory has no physical model to start with to duplicate.
In bold above: Not a truer set of words spoken. The very fact we don't have those resources ensures that we can be duped to hell with almost any theory so called scientists come up with.


 
If every school could afford an electron microscope, then you yourself could observe air molecules and the effect pressure has on them. Luckily for you, these experiments have already been done countless times. For some reason, you reject the scientific community.
No, I don't reject the scientific community. I reject bullshit artists and question theoretical scientists that push stuff onto us that they cannot prove themselves and in many cases do not know what they're even saying in any real sense.


You deny the conclusions that thousands of smarter, better equipped and more experienced scientists have come to.
I deny the conclusions of people who come up with ridiculous illogical crap, to me. That's my prerogative.


In place of all their effort, you would have me believe in your thought experiments that have no testing to prove them. Admit that logically, I should assume that you have no idea what you are talking about
You can believe anything you want to. You can spew anything you feel like spewing. You can follow the indoctrinated way or your peers.
You can take the word of anyone you've never encountered and any model you've never seen working.
That is your prerogative but it does not make anything you say to me - true.





Like I said above, before you make such claims you need to actually test them in a way that we all can test. You can't just come up with a model in your mind and expect the world to be that way.
That's what this topic is all about. I've also tested stuff. It doesn't matter whether you believe that or not. the issue for me is finding the truth. If your issue is also finding it, then you shouldn't even be fighting against anything alternate to what you were taught. You should be embracing the fact that you can actually try and test different avenues and see if any of them can cast doubt on the model that we've all been schooled into.




I don't have to personally look into an electron microscope. Thousands of others have already done it. They ALL came to the same conclusion.
Do you actually know all these people personally or are you merely reciting what's been parroted thousands of times?


Just because you don't know how an electron microscope works doesn't mean I have to personally perform an experiment for you.
You can do whatever you feel. You can go about your life with the stuff you were taught firmly adhered to your mind and reject every word I say. I do things to satisfy my inquisitive mind and as I do so, I hope to give people the opportunity to actually open their minds to at least have a serious think for themselves.


Let's remember here that YOU are the one at odds with scientific research. If you want to tell me something you better have some sort of research to back it up besides "it makes sense in my brain so it must be true"
If something makes sense to me in a simple and logical way against something that does not make any sense at all in any way I look at it, then I'm going to go down only one road.





Sorry according to your model, the stack goes all the way up to the top of the firmament? Then why is there more downward pressure than upward? Shouldn't it be equalized in this model?
There is more downward pressure on your because you are a bottom feeder on the land under the gaseous atmosphere.
Just like a crab is the bottom feeder of the liquid atmosphere it is under.






If there was a ceiling above that man, then there should be.
The man is the ceiling.


According to the FE model, the atmosphere goes all the way to the firmament. Therefore, upward pressure should equal downward pressure.

Only for any dense object placed within it and pushing against it.

Another problem with using this video as an analogy is the fact that humans are solid, and therefore behave differently than gasses would.
It was used as an analogy and no more than that. You're intelligent enough to distinguish that, I'm sure.


Gasses expand to fill any container, maintaining equal pressure on all sides.
At sea level, yes. To our human perception.


That is, of course, another force is acting upon said gasses.
In which every dense object is doing exactly that.


In an RE model, gravity accounts for this downward force.
And yet if you're honest you do not know what gravity is and neither do scientists.



The FE model does not account for this downward force.
My model does.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 03:09:07 PM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28074
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #171 on: August 04, 2016, 11:11:46 AM »
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.
Are air molecules the only molecules that expand, or can liquid and solid molecules expand too?  Why doesn't a block of wood expand when put into a vacuum chamber if it has air molecules trapped inside it?
Some wood probably would (pardon the pun) but some wood is actually very porous.
A denser wood would probably start to break down if a suitable strong and a strong chamber was used.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12843
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #172 on: August 04, 2016, 11:43:18 AM »
You could even weigh it on a normal bathroom scale used for human weight. Once fully compressed there should be enough air weight to make a difference. Another bonus is the constant surface area of the compressor.
That's a disadvantage, really. if we're being fair, we ought to give denpressure a chance, and the denpressure model predicts that the larger surface area with no added mass (beyond air) would increase buoyancy and decrease weight. The better experiment's always one where evidence can be in favour or opposed to, rather than just opposed to. This way, as well, it'll be more striking whichever happens.

I suppose you could run it both ways.  It's just that speaking from practical experience, measuring the weight change in something the size of a balloon is the kind of experiment that's very likely to get botched.  It takes some finesse to run it reliably.  You're also dealing with the change in the air pressure and the surface area which makes interpreting results a bit messier.

I would also disagree that a good experiment is designed to promote a theory.  What we're going for is falsification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability.  Which I realize seems counter intuitive but the scientific method works kind of like a jury verdict in that a defendant is never declared innocent, only not guilty.  It's a subtle but important difference which lies at the heart of epistemology.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #173 on: August 04, 2016, 11:59:58 AM »
]Duplicating something is fine if it was done in the first place. Much of the scientific stuff of theory has no physical model to start with to duplicate.
In bold above: Not a truer set of words spoken. The very fact we don't have those resources ensures that we can be duped to hell with almost any theory so called scientists come up with.

You act as though all these thousands of INDIVIDUALS from different countries, backgrounds, religious views, and political motives are all colluding in order to dupe us? This could be further from the truth. Scientists are vicious with each other. They critique each other to no end. I have no idea why you think the world is out to get you, but know that this is a sign of schizophrenia.

No, I don't reject the scientific community. I reject bullshit artists and question theoretical scientists that push stuff onto us that they cannot prove themselves and in many cases do not know what they're even saying in any real sense.

Don't you have any idea how hypocritical you sound? You have ZERO PROOF for any of your claims yet you keep shrieking and stomping and insisting that you are right and every other actual scientist on earth is wrong. You are no better than they are.

You can believe anything you want to. You can spew anything you feel like spewing. You can follow the indoctrinated way or your peers.
You can take the word of anyone you've never encountered and any model you've never seen working.
That is your prerogative but it does not make anything you say to me - true.

I choose to follow the most logical model available. A model that can actually explain the setting sun, satellites, eclipses, and actually has a working map.

That's what this topic is all about. I've also tested stuff. It doesn't matter whether you believe that or not. the issue for me is finding the truth. If your issue is also finding it, then you shouldn't even be fighting against anything alternate to what you were taught. You should be embracing the fact that you can actually try and test different avenues and see if any of them can cast doubt on the model that we've all been schooled into.

This is one of my favorite threads. I am excited FE believers are finally trying the scientific method to actually test their theories  (even though the balloon experiment has been conducted before). And when you measure for yourself the FACT that a balloon full of air both has more mass and weighs more than a deflated balloon, I hope you accept it.

Do you actually know all these people personally or are you merely reciting what's been parroted thousands of times?
Do you personally know anybody who has seen or measured anything like a firmament? Or are you merely reciting what dozens have parroted before?

You can do whatever you feel. You can go about your life with the stuff you were taught firmly adhered to your mind and reject every word I say. I do things to satisfy my inquisitive mind and as I do so, I hope to give people the opportunity to actually open their minds to at least have a serious think for themselves.

That's a great mindset. I hope you keep an open mind when you conduct this balloon experiment.


If something makes sense to me in a simple and logical way against something that does not make any sense at all in any way I look at it, then I'm going to go down only one road.

How does it make any logical sense to believe in a firmament when it goes against all logical thinking AND evidence, empirical or otherwise?



The man is the ceiling.

Wait, the man IS the ceiling? Let me get this straight. In this analogy, the people are representing air particles. So all the air on earth is kept under pressure by nothing but air?

What happens if you put a water balloon on a table? The water is kept under pressure by the balloon. But if you try to pop the balloon, the water will escape and drip over the edges of the table because nothing is keeping it in.


Only for any dense object placed within it and pushing against it.

Sorry the firmament isn't pushing against the atmosphere? Then where does all the pressure come from?

It was used as an analogy and no more than that. You're intelligent enough to distinguish that, I'm sure.

Obviously it is an analogy. I am simply telling you it is a poor one, as human pyramids do not accurately represent air particles moving within an enclosed space.

At sea level, yes. To our human perception.

This is constant at all levels of elevation. Not sure what you mean by the "to put human perception" bit. Can you name 1 thing that isn't based upon the human perception?


And yet if you're honest you do not know what gravity is and neither do scientists.
You're right. No scientist has yet discovered a particle or other source of gravitational energy. We can, however, measure it's effects with great accuracy. That's how we discovered Pluto in the first place. Scientists realized there must be another source of mass in our solar system to account for the shape of outer planet orbits. Using nothing but sheer calculations, scientists in Arizona were able to make visual confirmation of the planet decades ago. You can even visit your local observatory and see it for yourself, but your tinfoil hat is too large for you to enter the building. You even doubt Jupiter has moons, even though you can build your own telescope and see for yourself just like Galileo did thousands of years ago. For some reason, you refuse. I wonder why that is.


My model does.

No it doesnt. If you knew anything about fluids, you would know that absent any other force, they exert even pressure throughout the ENTIRE SYSTEM. In the FE model, there is no gravity, so what other force is pushing all this air toward the Earth's surface?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #174 on: August 04, 2016, 12:04:42 PM »
You could even weigh it on a normal bathroom scale used for human weight. Once fully compressed there should be enough air weight to make a difference. Another bonus is the constant surface area of the compressor.
That's a disadvantage, really. if we're being fair, we ought to give denpressure a chance, and the denpressure model predicts that the larger surface area with no added mass (beyond air) would increase buoyancy and decrease weight. The better experiment's always one where evidence can be in favour or opposed to, rather than just opposed to. This way, as well, it'll be more striking whichever happens.

That would be adding a second variable. The best experiments only study 1 variable at a time to ensure accuracy. This is why a rigid container is best. There is only 1 variable, being the amount of air inside the compressor. With the balloon, the surface area becomes a second variable. We need to test the effects of air pressure when all other conditions are constant.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28074
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #175 on: August 04, 2016, 12:22:51 PM »
]Duplicating something is fine if it was done in the first place. Much of the scientific stuff of theory has no physical model to start with to duplicate.
In bold above: Not a truer set of words spoken. The very fact we don't have those resources ensures that we can be duped to hell with almost any theory so called scientists come up with.

You act as though all these thousands of INDIVIDUALS from different countries, backgrounds, religious views, and political motives are all colluding in order to dupe us? This could be further from the truth. Scientists are vicious with each other. They critique each other to no end. I have no idea why you think the world is out to get you, but know that this is a sign of schizophrenia.

No, I don't reject the scientific community. I reject bullshit artists and question theoretical scientists that push stuff onto us that they cannot prove themselves and in many cases do not know what they're even saying in any real sense.

Don't you have any idea how hypocritical you sound? You have ZERO PROOF for any of your claims yet you keep shrieking and stomping and insisting that you are right and every other actual scientist on earth is wrong. You are no better than they are.

You can believe anything you want to. You can spew anything you feel like spewing. You can follow the indoctrinated way or your peers.
You can take the word of anyone you've never encountered and any model you've never seen working.
That is your prerogative but it does not make anything you say to me - true.

I choose to follow the most logical model available. A model that can actually explain the setting sun, satellites, eclipses, and actually has a working map.

That's what this topic is all about. I've also tested stuff. It doesn't matter whether you believe that or not. the issue for me is finding the truth. If your issue is also finding it, then you shouldn't even be fighting against anything alternate to what you were taught. You should be embracing the fact that you can actually try and test different avenues and see if any of them can cast doubt on the model that we've all been schooled into.

This is one of my favorite threads. I am excited FE believers are finally trying the scientific method to actually test their theories  (even though the balloon experiment has been conducted before). And when you measure for yourself the FACT that a balloon full of air both has more mass and weighs more than a deflated balloon, I hope you accept it.

Do you actually know all these people personally or are you merely reciting what's been parroted thousands of times?
Do you personally know anybody who has seen or measured anything like a firmament? Or are you merely reciting what dozens have parroted before?

You can do whatever you feel. You can go about your life with the stuff you were taught firmly adhered to your mind and reject every word I say. I do things to satisfy my inquisitive mind and as I do so, I hope to give people the opportunity to actually open their minds to at least have a serious think for themselves.

That's a great mindset. I hope you keep an open mind when you conduct this balloon experiment.


If something makes sense to me in a simple and logical way against something that does not make any sense at all in any way I look at it, then I'm going to go down only one road.

How does it make any logical sense to believe in a firmament when it goes against all logical thinking AND evidence, empirical or otherwise?



The man is the ceiling.

Wait, the man IS the ceiling? Let me get this straight. In this analogy, the people are representing air particles. So all the air on earth is kept under pressure by nothing but air?

What happens if you put a water balloon on a table? The water is kept under pressure by the balloon. But if you try to pop the balloon, the water will escape and drip over the edges of the table because nothing is keeping it in.


Only for any dense object placed within it and pushing against it.

Sorry the firmament isn't pushing against the atmosphere? Then where does all the pressure come from?

It was used as an analogy and no more than that. You're intelligent enough to distinguish that, I'm sure.

Obviously it is an analogy. I am simply telling you it is a poor one, as human pyramids do not accurately represent air particles moving within an enclosed space.

At sea level, yes. To our human perception.

This is constant at all levels of elevation. Not sure what you mean by the "to put human perception" bit. Can you name 1 thing that isn't based upon the human perception?


And yet if you're honest you do not know what gravity is and neither do scientists.
You're right. No scientist has yet discovered a particle or other source of gravitational energy. We can, however, measure it's effects with great accuracy. That's how we discovered Pluto in the first place. Scientists realized there must be another source of mass in our solar system to account for the shape of outer planet orbits. Using nothing but sheer calculations, scientists in Arizona were able to make visual confirmation of the planet decades ago. You can even visit your local observatory and see it for yourself, but your tinfoil hat is too large for you to enter the building. You even doubt Jupiter has moons, even though you can build your own telescope and see for yourself just like Galileo did thousands of years ago. For some reason, you refuse. I wonder why that is.


My model does.

No it doesnt. If you knew anything about fluids, you would know that absent any other force, they exert even pressure throughout the ENTIRE SYSTEM. In the FE model, there is no gravity, so what other force is pushing all this air toward the Earth's surface?
Let's leave it at that before this becomes a tit for tat with no end.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #176 on: August 04, 2016, 12:24:58 PM »
That would be adding a second variable. The best experiments only study 1 variable at a time to ensure accuracy. This is why a rigid container is best. There is only 1 variable, being the amount of air inside the compressor. With the balloon, the surface area becomes a second variable. We need to test the effects of air pressure when all other conditions are constant.

It depends what your aim is. For this kind of experiment, with a natural proof/disproof structure, it would seem more practical to first determine what needs the effects tested of. I'll admit my background's more mathematical, so I think in those terms, but it's usually better to know a solution exists before you start calculating it. We're not working from scratch, there are two existing models and only one of which predicts surface area having an influence, in the opposite direction to what the other model would say would happen.
Predictive power is just as important as falsifiability. Plus, the advantage of the balloon case is that it's pretty easy to replicate. About 10 on Amazon to get the necessary equipment for the basic form, even assuming you wouldn't have a scale and balloon around the house as a lot of people would. So, if a RE-favouring result comes out FEers who might disbelieve can verify: if the denpressure-favouring result comes out, disbelieving REers can in turn check too.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #177 on: August 04, 2016, 12:30:25 PM »
Let's leave it at that before this becomes a tit for tat with no end.

OK. I was hoping you had some actual answers for me. Now I see I have asked questions that you simply cannot answer. I accept your conceit. I have to commend you, you have a naturally inquisitive mind. This is a good thing. I just hope that you keep an open mind, so if you ever actually see all the evidence of a Globe earth you don't just shy away from it (like you are doing with me right now).

You share this characteristic with a person whose beliefs are based upon faith and faith alone. When faced with biblical scriptures explicitly explaining the logistics of buying and selling slaves, most Christians shy away from the conversation as well. I just hope (against hope) your theories aren't based upon such blind faith.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 12:57:16 PM by TheRealBillNye »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41774
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #178 on: August 04, 2016, 01:05:23 PM »
Are air molecules the only molecules that expand, or can liquid and solid molecules expand too?  Why doesn't a block of wood expand when put into a vacuum chamber if it has air molecules trapped inside it?
Some wood probably would (pardon the pun) but some wood is actually very porous.
A denser wood would probably start to break down if a suitable strong and a strong chamber was used.
Well, that sounds like it would be easy enough to test.  But why would the wood molecules break down instead of expand to fill the chamber?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12843
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #179 on: August 04, 2016, 01:11:56 PM »
Enough talk!  Let's science!!

Here we see my compressor at 0 psi weighing 52.8lb:



Here we see it at 120psi weighing in at 54.3lb:



Discuss!
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget