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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 571965 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #240 on: August 05, 2016, 10:53:11 AM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #241 on: August 05, 2016, 10:55:44 AM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #242 on: August 05, 2016, 11:00:21 AM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Yes it does.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17027
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #243 on: August 05, 2016, 11:06:05 AM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

I drew no such conclusion.  I'm just a lab monkey who's competent at carrying out experiments.

You might consider taking some time to analyze the data and suggest a new experiment, perhaps even revise your theory appropriately.  Time permitting, I'd be happy to run tests and provide feedback.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #244 on: August 05, 2016, 11:06:30 AM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

Why not come up with an experiment on your own and post it here?

How about pointing out the flaws in the experiments already conducted? 

If you are interested in revealing the truth then you should do at least one or both of the above.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #245 on: August 05, 2016, 11:22:34 AM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Yes it does.

No it doesn't. Unless of course you weigh more on a sunny day....
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #246 on: August 05, 2016, 11:27:30 AM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.

Yes it does.

If you weigh something in a vacuum chamber it will weigh more than it would at the atmospheric pressure at sea level.

Archimedes Law says the upward force will decrease as the fluid surrounding the object density decreases.  The air is the fluid.

Maybe when babyhighspeed gets his vacuum chamber up and running he can take something like cork and piece of steel weighing the same at sea level and place them on a balance scale.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #247 on: August 05, 2016, 11:30:45 AM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Yes it does.
please show how with some examples over a range of pressures..
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 11:34:59 AM by inquisitive »

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #248 on: August 05, 2016, 11:32:47 AM »
This is for liquid...i have equipment for pressurising gas. I also have a machine that can create a gaseous smoke like dye. If that curbs anyone's creative thought process.

When your vacuum chamber your complete and if you have access to a balance scale this would be an interesting experiment.

Take two objects of different densities. I suggest cork or stryofoam and a piece of lead or steel.  they need to weigh the same.

Place both on the balance scale, evacuate the chamber and see what happens.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 11:40:46 AM by Woody »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #249 on: August 05, 2016, 12:41:31 PM »
If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

It's fair to say that the experiments aren't conclusive, there's always room for something to not be taken account or for something to be overlooked, or indeed for simple experimental error, but the latter can be corrected for and there would need to be some example for the former.
As it does seem as though the presence of air inside an object (whether a balloon or tank) does increase its weight, then there would need to be an explanation.

It could be human error, but repetition makes that seem unlikely (as does the correction for water weight). So we're left with the option of finding the explanation. Assuming that the inside of a balloon is not independent from the external stacks (as seems reasonable), then perhaps the heightened pressure (compressed molecules trying to expand) on the inside acts through the balloon and creates extra force?
That's the main recourse I can see, and would apply to both the balloon and compressed air cases, and does seem in line with my understanding of denpressure, though I admit that's incomplete.
As it is, you're the only one with a more intuitive understanding of denpressure. I typically just think in terms of inverse buoyancy, which definitely does away with my initial objections, but that alone isn't enough in this case as we're on new ground: higher concentrations of displaced air.

(If, alternatively, you want to move on, just say, there's probably not much more discussion that can be had on this exact topic if you don't want to linger, and I know i'm definitely tired of seeing REers ganging up).
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #250 on: August 05, 2016, 03:13:39 PM »
Here's an experiment you can do in your own house. Place a ball bearing in a bicycle tire, patch the hole, and weigh the tire empty of air. Next, pump as much air into the balloon as you can (using a bike pump with a pressure gauge) and weigh it again. According to you, the extra pressure should make the ball bearing weigh more, but the tire would weigh exactly the same.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #251 on: August 05, 2016, 03:28:32 PM »
Here's an experiment you can do in your own house. Place a ball bearing in a bicycle tire, patch the hole, and weigh the tire empty of air. Next, pump as much air into the balloon as you can (using a bike pump with a pressure gauge) and weigh it again. According to you, the extra pressure should make the ball bearing weigh more, but the tire would weigh exactly the same.

To be rigorous, it might be better to weigh the tyre inflated to a set pressure, weigh the ball bearing, then weigh the tyre with ball bearing inflated to that pressure.
The response, though, is likely that in the environment of the tyre the forces act on all sides of the ball bearing and are balanced, so you'd only get the normal weight.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #252 on: August 05, 2016, 03:30:02 PM »
Exactly. You would get the same weight. But in Scepti's world, you shouldn't. That is why it is a good experiment.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17027
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #253 on: August 05, 2016, 03:37:46 PM »
Onward and upwards, experiment #2

steel pre soak 3.051
post soak 3.051



wood pre soak .048
post soak .07

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

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17027
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #254 on: August 05, 2016, 03:47:35 PM »
Oh, one more detail on #2.  Here's a picture of the board cut in half.



It's not super obvious from a picture but the water has completely saturated the board.  There's no dry center.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17027
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #255 on: August 05, 2016, 04:00:55 PM »
Alright. Hard day of sciencing done. Time to get drunk and do yard work.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #256 on: August 05, 2016, 04:03:51 PM »
Exactly. You would get the same weight. But in Scepti's world, you shouldn't. That is why it is a good experiment.
You do realise I just gave the explanation from the denpressure model, right?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #257 on: August 05, 2016, 04:09:38 PM »
Oh. Why would the forces act on all sides? I thought they only acted down.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #258 on: August 05, 2016, 04:23:47 PM »
Oh. Why would the forces act on all sides? I thought they only acted down.

They do in general, essentially due to inverse buoyancy: we push up from the ground, everything we do moves things away from the ground, so they get pushed back. A swimming pool's a good analogy. Actually the equal-weight answer was wrong, I think.
Once in a pressurised environment though, like a tyre, the additional pressure comes from all sides.
If anything, the extra molecules would reduce the weight because they act on all sides. Easiest analogy, to adopt the swimming pool analogy again with a more typical liquid than water, put an object in the solid form of that liquid (ice is a bad example as it floats on water, I'm going by the fact solids are the easiest example of a densely packed fluid to visualise) then it certainly wouldn't gain buoyancy. It'd sink: which, transferring the analogy to reality, might mean the object would be lighter.
Though, of course, an object in water sinks due to gravity or denpressure or whatever (actually I'm interested in how denpressure would work underwater, but that's neither here nor there right now), it wouldn't necessarily be the case in the denpressure system. The theory's kinda hard to explain, but in practice you can see that in a densely packed group of molecules, any movement/acceleration would be reduced, not increased, so in turn the force would be reduced too.

Admittedly I'm no expert on denpressure, and it's possible I'm making a mistake.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #259 on: August 05, 2016, 04:35:53 PM »
You people think you've destroyed denpressure by doing what you've just done?
I knew this was going to happen from the off. I was just waiting whilst some of you cast the line and started to gain tension before reeling in.

You're not getting away with it that easily and I don't give a toss how much you try to pressurise and dig en-masse.

If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.
weight does not vary with atmospheric pressure.
Yes it does.
Sceppy, finally you have it!

The higher the atmospheric pressure (well, density) the less an object weighs. It's called buoyancy, Archimedes principle.


*

Rayzor

  • 12188
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #260 on: August 05, 2016, 06:27:51 PM »
Alright. Hard day of sciencing done. Time to get drunk and do yard work.

I'll agree to half of what you said,  you guess which half.

The question I have,  is denspressure a self consistent system?..   let's forget experiments for a minute and consider denspressure in it's abstract form,  what are the equations that govern what we measure as weight.   In conventional physics it's -mg,   what's the equivalent in denspressure?   

Following Jane's lead and suggesting it's inverse buoyancy,  then the only factors we need to consider are the density of the surrounding medium and the density of the object itself,  so let's assume an object of volume Vo and a density of  Md for the medium and Od for the object,  now the missing link,  what is the origin of the downwards force?  That's where pressure enters the equation,  but I'm unclear on what form the maths should take, 

In conventional physics it's simply the weight of the medium displaced,  which in this case the force would be Fobject = -g Vo*Md  In words, the force is equal to the volume of the object times the density of the medium it displaces.  We have Archimedes to thank for that formula. 

I explicitly put "g"'s into the equations to remind me that in denspressure we are dealing with mass not weight.   We have no gravity remember.

I'm not prepared to make a call on denspressure just yet,  it may or may not be a self consistent view of some world or other,  but probably not reflecting objective reality.   

« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 06:30:29 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17027
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #261 on: August 05, 2016, 07:18:05 PM »
If some of you actually took the time to understand denpressure you'll know that some of the experiments are not going to be conclusive, yet you are using them as just that.

It's fair to say that the experiments aren't conclusive, there's always room for something to not be taken account or for something to be overlooked, or indeed for simple experimental error, but the latter can be corrected for and there would need to be some example for the former.
As it does seem as though the presence of air inside an object (whether a balloon or tank) does increase its weight, then there would need to be an explanation.

It could be human error, but repetition makes that seem unlikely (as does the correction for water weight). So we're left with the option of finding the explanation. Assuming that the inside of a balloon is not independent from the external stacks (as seems reasonable), then perhaps the heightened pressure (compressed molecules trying to expand) on the inside acts through the balloon and creates extra force?
That's the main recourse I can see, and would apply to both the balloon and compressed air cases, and does seem in line with my understanding of denpressure, though I admit that's incomplete.
As it is, you're the only one with a more intuitive understanding of denpressure. I typically just think in terms of inverse buoyancy, which definitely does away with my initial objections, but that alone isn't enough in this case as we're on new ground: higher concentrations of displaced air.

(If, alternatively, you want to move on, just say, there's probably not much more discussion that can be had on this exact topic if you don't want to linger, and I know i'm definitely tired of seeing REers ganging up).

Inconclusive? That's simply not true. Through scientific rigor I have conclusively proven that if you submerge a 3 pound piece of steel for 24 hours then you can't get your 10 bucks back from the Home Depot because the damn thing has started to rust already.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17027
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #262 on: August 05, 2016, 08:00:06 PM »
Alright. Hard day of sciencing done. Time to get drunk and do yard work.

I'll agree to half of what you said,  you guess which half.

The question I have,  is denspressure a self consistent system?..   let's forget experiments for a minute and consider denspressure in it's abstract form,  what are the equations that govern what we measure as weight.   In conventional physics it's -mg,   what's the equivalent in denspressure?   

Following Jane's lead and suggesting it's inverse buoyancy,  then the only factors we need to consider are the density of the surrounding medium and the density of the object itself,  so let's assume an object of volume Vo and a density of  Md for the medium and Od for the object,  now the missing link,  what is the origin of the downwards force?  That's where pressure enters the equation,  but I'm unclear on what form the maths should take, 

In conventional physics it's simply the weight of the medium displaced,  which in this case the force would be Fobject = -g Vo*Md  In words, the force is equal to the volume of the object times the density of the medium it displaces.  We have Archimedes to thank for that formula. 

I explicitly put "g"'s into the equations to remind me that in denspressure we are dealing with mass not weight.   We have no gravity remember.

I'm not prepared to make a call on denspressure just yet,  it may or may not be a self consistent view of some world or other,  but probably not reflecting objective reality.

The thing is, and I could be wrong on this, is that buoyancy only attempts to get in your way when you're moving.  A fluid or air medium is almost a distraction when you're researching an attractive force. 

When I heard about this theory the first thing that came to mind is sticking a scale and a weight in a vacuum chamber, decreasing the pressure by one half and see if there's any weight change.  Which is what happens by the way, but I'm sure you already knew that.  Kind of wish I took pictures of that. I'm not going to get access to that vacuum chamber for a while.

This might be a failure of my imagination but about the closest thing I can think of that would make this work is if there's a hard dome over the planet and air molecules are connected enough that they would act really long springs pressing down on us while they're pressing against the dome.  But that's trivially easy to disprove, just go indoors and see if you achieve 0g.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Rayzor

  • 12188
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #263 on: August 05, 2016, 08:09:25 PM »
Alright. Hard day of sciencing done. Time to get drunk and do yard work.

I'll agree to half of what you said,  you guess which half.

The question I have,  is denspressure a self consistent system?..   let's forget experiments for a minute and consider denspressure in it's abstract form,  what are the equations that govern what we measure as weight.   In conventional physics it's -mg,   what's the equivalent in denspressure?   

Following Jane's lead and suggesting it's inverse buoyancy,  then the only factors we need to consider are the density of the surrounding medium and the density of the object itself,  so let's assume an object of volume Vo and a density of  Md for the medium and Od for the object,  now the missing link,  what is the origin of the downwards force?  That's where pressure enters the equation,  but I'm unclear on what form the maths should take, 

In conventional physics it's simply the weight of the medium displaced,  which in this case the force would be Fobject = -g Vo*Md  In words, the force is equal to the volume of the object times the density of the medium it displaces.  We have Archimedes to thank for that formula. 

I explicitly put "g"'s into the equations to remind me that in denspressure we are dealing with mass not weight.   We have no gravity remember.

I'm not prepared to make a call on denspressure just yet,  it may or may not be a self consistent view of some world or other,  but probably not reflecting objective reality.

The thing is, and I could be wrong on this, is that buoyancy only attempts to get in your way when you're moving.  A fluid or air medium is almost a distraction when you're researching an attractive force. 

When I heard about this theory the first thing that came to mind is sticking a scale and a weight in a vacuum chamber, decreasing the pressure by one half and see if there's any weight change.  Which is what happens by the way, but I'm sure you already knew that.  Kind of wish I took pictures of that. I'm not going to get access to that vacuum chamber for a while.

This might be a failure of my imagination but about the closest thing I can think of that would make this work is if there's a hard dome over the planet and air molecules are connected enough that they would act really long springs pressing down on us while they're pressing against the dome.  But that's trivially easy to disprove, just go indoors and see if you achieve 0g.

Sokarul already did the weight in a vacuum chamber experiment,  and scepti disputed the method,  claiming that the scales themselves were affected by the reduced pressure,  so any weighing in a vacuum experiment needs to somehow have the measuring apparatus at normal pressure.  I was thinking of a beam balance with half inside the vacuum chamber and half outside. 

I think these experiments are more and more about delusional psychology and less and less about real world physics.   Show me the equations, then we will see.

PV=nRT   is hard to beat.

One other prediction of denspressure is that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects.  The old Aristotle vs Galileo argument that was won by Galileo hundreds of years ago. :)
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 08:12:22 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17027
  • Djinn
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #264 on: August 05, 2016, 11:18:30 PM »

Sokarul already did the weight in a vacuum chamber experiment,  and scepti disputed the method,  claiming that the scales themselves were affected by the reduced pressure,  so any weighing in a vacuum experiment needs to somehow have the measuring apparatus at normal pressure.  I was thinking of a beam balance with half inside the vacuum chamber and half outside. 


I... am going to have to wrap my head around that one for a while.  I'm pretty sure it's wrongheaded, I'm just not sure how yet.


I think these experiments are more and more about delusional psychology and less and less about real world physics.   Show me the equations, then we will see.


And there it is, the appeal of this site to me.  Most people who encounter lunatics wonder how to change their minds.  This is a good question but I ponder a more important one; How do I know I'm not the lunatic?  Is there a logical proof for that?  Is it even possible to recognize when I'm being unreasonable?
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #265 on: August 06, 2016, 01:13:31 AM »
Jane's the closest to understanding the gist of this. Some of you are teetering on the edge but just can't see past the simplicity.

Let's use what Rabinoz said about buoyancy. This gets mistaken for the use of gravity. In fact it's a classic con of gravity but actually proves denpressure.

Water is the key issue to knowing what atmospheric pressure is doing pressing down on anything pushing into it, because water is displaced by the atmospheric pressure acting upon any object, where an equal amount of water is displaced as the actual man made measurement of the object.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #266 on: August 06, 2016, 01:22:46 AM »
Sceptimatic could you answer a question about denpressure for me? You still haven't answered it. Why can we measure exponential drop-off of air pressure as we increase altitude? Basic physics will tell you that, in an enclosed space, absent any other force, gas particles will achieve equilibrium pressure throughout the container. In reality, we can plainly see that some force is pushing a greater concentration of air particles toward the earth's surface. Would you care to explain this? Is there some flaw with my reasoning or the principles I have addressed?

EDIT: fixing typos
« Last Edit: August 06, 2016, 01:58:50 AM by TheRealBillNye »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #267 on: August 06, 2016, 01:54:57 AM »
Jane's the closest to understanding the gist of this. Some of you are teetering on the edge but just can't see past the simplicity.

Let's use what Rabinoz said about buoyancy. This gets mistaken for the use of gravity. In fact it's a classic con of gravity but actually proves denpressure.

Water is the key issue to knowing what atmospheric pressure is doing pressing down on anything pushing into it, because water is displaced by the atmospheric pressure acting upon any object, where an equal amount of water is displaced as the actual man made measurement of the object.
We are still waiting for details of how the weight of an object varies with atmospheric pressure over the course of time, with some typical values.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #268 on: August 06, 2016, 02:00:32 AM »
Sceptimatic could you answer a question about denpressure for me? You still haven't answered it. Why can we measure anot exponential drop-off of air pressure as we increase altitude. Basic physics will tell you that, in an enclosed space, absent any other force, gas particles will achieve equilibrium pressure throughout the container. In reality, we can plainly see that some force is pushing a greater concentration of air particles toward the earth's surface. Would you care to explain this? Is there some flaw with my reasoning or the principles I have addressed?
It's  not as if I haven't explained but I'll give it another shot.

First of all I'll deal with your container and when I do, please understand what I'm trying to tell you.
In your pressurised container - yes, there is as near equilibrium of pressure when you consider a sphere shaped container to save argument.
If I was to put you inside that container and then start to pressurise it, you are going to be crushed to pulp in short order because the sphere already contained around 14.7 psi before pressurisation commenced, due to the atmosphere external to it becoming part of it.

On the flattish Earth with the dome, we have half of that sphere. We essentially have the widest area at the bottom and a build up that moves inwards as the dome forms, until it reached the top, where the matter is the most expanded and taking up the lesser space.

Now we get into vibration by energy, as you know as well as I know that matter is always vibrating in many trillions of frequencies all over the Earth.

Anyway, imagine the Earth as flattish with the dome and picture an empty snow globe. Fill it with as many different dense grains as you can find. Sand, salt, talcum powder or whatever until you fill the snow globe.
Now get an electric orbital sander (without the sanding sheet) and turn it upside down and hold your snow globe on it for a while and watch the particles take their form in a sandwich of different densities.

The densest will be at the bottom and the less dense or largest will be sat at the top.
Why?

The reason is because the more there is of something the smaller they become and the more densely packed they become, meaning anything pushed into them by action/energy, will be crushed/squeezed up.
That's what's happening to us except we are a massive dense unit and we always use energy to PUSH into the atmospheric squeeze until we have no more energy to do that. Basically we stop growing.
The thing is, the atmosphere is trying to crush us but we fight back against it by pushing it away with our dense mass.


I've made a story here ;D but I find that explaining stuff like this will eventually light the bulb and I'm willing to keep explaining for anyone willing to take the time to grasp instead of spending their time simply waiting to ridicule. Not that you are yet - but you get my gist.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #269 on: August 06, 2016, 02:04:34 AM »
Jane's the closest to understanding the gist of this. Some of you are teetering on the edge but just can't see past the simplicity.

Let's use what Rabinoz said about buoyancy. This gets mistaken for the use of gravity. In fact it's a classic con of gravity but actually proves denpressure.

Water is the key issue to knowing what atmospheric pressure is doing pressing down on anything pushing into it, because water is displaced by the atmospheric pressure acting upon any object, where an equal amount of water is displaced as the actual man made measurement of the object.
We are still waiting for details of how the weight of an object varies with atmospheric pressure over the course of time, with some typical values.
  Isn't it you people that that push the gold weight carry on in different climates, telling us gold weighs more in some places than others?

Correct me if I'm wrong?