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

Quote from: inquisitive on August 06, 2016, 01:54:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic 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.

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?

I am not 'one' of those people.  Please answer the question.

I tried to stick with this thread as long as I could, but enough is enough. if the dateline was AD1400 this would still be a silly thread but in AD 2016 it is an exercise in idiocy and EASILY debunked. You cannot simply say that a vacuum does not exist and we cannot create simply because it would debunk this theory.  Nor can you say that the bulk of science is not verifiable and repeatable - because it is.

I know some of you are trying to be nice to this guy, but it is a fools errand. nothing you can say or do will ever make any dent because quite simply, he lacks the intellectual ability, the education or frankly, the mental stability to comprehend anything he does not understand. IN his mind, delusion is fact, because he can think it. Imagination is reality and nobody else can possibly understand his higher plane of thinking.

In professional terms, it is called Schizophrenia matched with a really poor education and an even poorer basic intellect.

harsh, but true.

Try talking about subatomic particles and the like. He cannot even understand something so basic that it can be debunked by a child, a pre-schooler, while asleep.

I tried to stick with this thread as long as I could, but enough is enough. if the dateline was AD1400 this would still be a silly thread but in AD 2016 it is an exercise in idiocy and EASILY debunked. You cannot simply say that a vacuum does not exist and we cannot create simply because it would debunk this theory.  Nor can you say that the bulk of science is not verifiable and repeatable - because it is.

I know some of you are trying to be nice to this guy, but it is a fools errand. nothing you can say or do will ever make any dent because quite simply, he lacks the intellectual ability, the education or frankly, the mental stability to comprehend anything he does not understand. IN his mind, delusion is fact, because he can think it. Imagination is reality and nobody else can possibly understand his higher plane of thinking.

In professional terms, it is called Schizophrenia matched with a really poor education and an even poorer basic intellect.

harsh, but true.

Try talking about subatomic particles and the like. He cannot even understand something so basic that it can be debunked by a child, a pre-schooler, while asleep.

The only shock with this post is the time it's took to come. I was waiting for the new entry (you) pretender to come in with a nice attempt at ridicule. It's part and parcel of how you people work.

I'll continue to deal with you people how I see fit. 

Sceptimatic, thank you for taking the time to explain your views. You and I are two sides of the same coin, each of us trying to enlighten the world with the power of friendly debate.

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.

No disagreement here, although the difference in equilibrium between a sphere shaped container and a hemisphere would be negligable.

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.

You have already forgotten one of the basic principles of gasses: in ANY closed container (regardless of shape), gasses will remain at equilibrium barring any outside force. This means the gasses in your dome model should expand outwards in all directions until they are halted by the firmament. There is no reason why the top of the dome would experience less pressure from any other part of the container. Already in your explanation you are describing air particles being drawn downward by an outside force (gravity).

The rest of your post was simply an explanation of density, and has nothing to do with my question about equilibrium. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, I made density towers in middle school.

Quote from: fliggs on August 06, 2016, 02:38:57 AM

I tried to stick with this thread as long as I could, but enough is enough. if the dateline was AD1400 this would still be a silly thread but in AD 2016 it is an exercise in idiocy and EASILY debunked. You cannot simply say that a vacuum does not exist and we cannot create simply because it would debunk this theory.  Nor can you say that the bulk of science is not verifiable and repeatable - because it is.

I know some of you are trying to be nice to this guy, but it is a fools errand. nothing you can say or do will ever make any dent because quite simply, he lacks the intellectual ability, the education or frankly, the mental stability to comprehend anything he does not understand. IN his mind, delusion is fact, because he can think it. Imagination is reality and nobody else can possibly understand his higher plane of thinking.

In professional terms, it is called Schizophrenia matched with a really poor education and an even poorer basic intellect.

harsh, but true.

Try talking about subatomic particles and the like. He cannot even understand something so basic that it can be debunked by a child, a pre-schooler, while asleep.

The only shock with this post is the time it's took to come. I was waiting for the new entry (you) pretender to come in with a nice attempt at ridicule. It's part and parcel of how you people work.

I'll continue to deal with you people how I see fit. 

No scepti, you are the problem. ANY conclusion or experiment that debunks your position you instantly denounce using any of your standard methods. Quite simply, you are UNTEACHABLE and therefor the antithesis of a scientist. A true scientist learns more from failed experiments that successful ones. You on the other hand learn nothing from any experiment whatsoever.

Your claim that you cannot have a vacuum or even a partial vaccuum is beyond ludicrous if only because of the existence of... VACUUM cleaners. If denpressure had anything accurate about it, its predictions would be consistent and repeatable. So far, not a single aspect of denpressure is provable or repeatable. IN fact, every element of it is easily disproven. The mere existence of difference airpressures as altitude exists debunks it primary claim. And as for the non-existence of gravity... doesnt denpressure fail in every single regard in that matter?  What exactly causes the orbits of the planets in our solar system or the structure of galaxies or anything else in the entire universe?

And this might sound like prying, but would you tell us how much education you have particularly in maths and science - assuming any?

You have already forgotten one of the basic principles of gasses: in ANY closed container (regardless of shape), gasses will remain at equilibrium barring any outside force.

Yes, if we do the experiments down at the bottom of the atmosphere where we are under highest atmopsheric pressure at sea level.
The thing is we are not stacking gases into the container, we are compressing them into a basic equilibrium of pressure when sealed inside.

The dome works on a stacked method but we are at the bottom of the stack.

This means the gasses in your dome model should expand outwards in all directions until they are halted by the firmament.

They are not halted by the firmament, they becomes the dome itself against what we could imagine is a true vacuum beyond.
When I say imagine, I mean it literally because a true vacuum is a none existence of all matter. A nothing.

There is no reason why the top of the dome would experience less pressure from any other part of the container.

The top the dome would be the part against a true vacuum. Where's the pressure coming from?

Already in your explanation you are describing air particles being drawn downward by an outside force (gravity).

No. You are trying to tell me that I am. I'm telling you about denpressure and the stacking of atmosphere.

The rest of your post was simply an explanation of density, and has nothing to do with my question about equilibrium. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, I made density towers in middle school.

Building towers at school and being told about gravity and a globe Earth at school is all well and good. It's no more than a story of fiction as far as I'm concerned.
I'm telling you about denpressure because it's real and gravity is not. Gravity is a fantasy as far as I'm concerned but I'm trying to help people understand denpressure by using the most basic talk and analogies I can muster.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 06, 2016, 02:04:34 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 06, 2016, 01:54:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic 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.

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?

I am not 'one' of those people.  Please answer the question.

Still no reply to this basic question.

One thing that interests me: how does denpressure act underwater?
Certainly there is air in water, but it doesn't seem to permeate in quite the same way. It's easy to tell that it would take some force for air to be pushed down to the bottom of any chamber of water (just blow on a cup for an easy test). If it just seeps through, though, how would it interact with the natural buoyancy of water?
For example, something I remember doing in a swimming pool countless times, there are a lot of objects you can push underwater and find that they don't sink or rise. There are also objects that float, and if you push them under they force their way back to the top. That's easy to understand in terms of buoyancy.
But what about the objects that sink? How would denpressure act on them when underwater? Whatever air molecules are there are all mixed in with the molecules of the water, so displacing one would displace the other. At any stage, the object's displacing a lot of molecules, but it's entering into the pool from the top so it ought to be pushed back up by the water.

The two solutions I can see, that don't seem to work, are:
The water and air displacement forces acting inside a body of water are opposed. Air is still being displaced ground-up so it pushes down, water is being displaced top-down so it pushes up. My issue here is that surely the water and air would act on each other, in this case, evening out the direction of force? (And there might be issues in terms of heavier objects sinking when the water-force ought to be stronger as they displace more, but I could be wrong).
The second option would be that an object that sinks does so because it was in the air, and didn't lose the impact of that force, so it was pushed down to the bottom and the water couldn't immediately act to push it back up (and, once in the water, the water acts on the pores to reduce the displacement and so reduce the upwards force). Presumably though that wouldn't last forever, and eventually the downwards force would be worn away by the upwards, and it'd float, which doesn't seem to match what we see.

The first option seems more likely, but I can't quite see how it would work. There might be an interesting test in terms of water-behaviour though.

One thing that interests me: how does denpressure act underwater?

Denpressure acts the same. 
You have to start looking at "water" as being dense vapor and "air" as being loose liquid. 

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 02:56:49 AM

There is no reason why the top of the dome would experience less pressure from any other part of the container.

The top the dome would be the part against a true vacuum. Where's the pressure coming from?

My caveman brain tells me that the pressure comes from within. 

If folks focus on our world being a dynamic cell or a bubble, erasing the illusion of "gravity" is a simple task. 
When a bubble expands, what expands the most? ANSWER: the base. 
Why does expansion happen the most?  ANSWER: there lies the most pressure!

Quote from: Jane on August 06, 2016, 05:06:12 AM

One thing that interests me: how does denpressure act underwater?

Denpressure acts the same. 
You have to start looking at "water" as being dense vapor and "air" as being loose liquid. 

I did: but even allowing for air to stack through water (which doesn't entirely make sense down to surface tension, which admittedly might just be part of the typical model that doesn't transfer, and how we can direct air at water and see water part) you're left essentially with competing buoyancy and no obvious reason for things to sink/float on any grounds beyond surface area.

You have to step away from the air/liquid/solid trichotomy. 

you're left essentially with competing buoyancy and no obvious reason for things to sink/float on any grounds beyond surface area.

That is why I believe the core of what we experience has more to do with vibrational energy ---- not "air" pressure. 
Air "pressure" is a result of the vibrational energy acting upon air. 

What you experience underwater is a consequence of vibrational energy acting upon the water (super-dense vapor) that surrounds you. 

One thing that interests me: how does denpressure act underwater?
Certainly there is air in water, but it doesn't seem to permeate in quite the same way. It's easy to tell that it would take some force for air to be pushed down to the bottom of any chamber of water (just blow on a cup for an easy test). If it just seeps through, though, how would it interact with the natural buoyancy of water?

What we have to remember is the objects ability to completely trap atmosphere as well as simply absorbing it. This defines how it works in water.
It's always high and low pressures and if an object has low pressure trapped in it, it will be SQUEEZED down but if it has high pressure of TRAPPED atmosphere, it will be squeezed up.

There's two things going on in objects. One is initial absorption of atmosphere and the other is the trapped atmosphere within that only energy applied at depth could release it from, or heating and super cooling.

For example, something I remember doing in a swimming pool countless times, there are a lot of objects you can push underwater and find that they don't sink or rise. There are also objects that float, and if you push them under they force their way back to the top. That's easy to understand in terms of buoyancy.
But what about the objects that sink? How would denpressure act on them when underwater?

By slowly trying to squeeze. You see the water is in direct resistance with the atmosphere above it, because water is simply just super small atmospheric molecules, but top us they're dense enough to be liquid due to its own stack from the bottom up against the atmospheric stack from the top of the water to the top of the sky.

Basically the object sinking is being squeezed but you can't see that initially, just as you can't see a heated train wheel expanding by heat to fit a cold inner hub, but you know it's happening when you see it fit on easily and then cooled off to be as tight as a weld.

Whatever air molecules are there are all mixed in with the molecules of the water, so displacing one would displace the other. At any stage, the object's displacing a lot of molecules, but it's entering into the pool from the top so it ought to be pushed back up by the water.

There's a few things going on. One is the squeeze of the water that releases some atmospheric molecules, making it smaller as well as temperature change as the object is squeezed.

The two solutions I can see, that don't seem to work, are:
The water and air displacement forces acting inside a body of water are opposed. Air is still being displaced ground-up so it pushes down, water is being displaced top-down so it pushes up. My issue here is that surely the water and air would act on each other, in this case, evening out the direction of force? (And there might be issues in terms of heavier objects sinking when the water-force ought to be stronger as they displace more, but I could be wrong).

Hopefully I've gave you food for thought but if not, come back at me and I'll try again.

The second option would be that an object that sinks does so because it was in the air, and didn't lose the impact of that force, so it was pushed down to the bottom and the water couldn't immediately act to push it back up (and, once in the water, the water acts on the pores to reduce the displacement and so reduce the upwards force). Presumably though that wouldn't last forever, and eventually the downwards force would be worn away by the upwards, and it'd float, which doesn't seem to match what we see.

Imagine putting a block of wood on top of the water. A soft porous wood. At first you see it sitting proudly on top with the majority of it's area protruding from the water.
The water is pushing against the sides of that block and by doing so it's pushing it up, or resisting it, because the atmosphere is doing exactly the same thing to it. It's a game of push of war instead of tug of war.
The water is more dense than atmosphere and we see that by the block only submerged in a minor way.
We know the wood is porous and is full of atmosphere which means that the atmosphere is more pushing through the wood rather than pushing on it by a squeeze DOWN.
All it can do is keep playing push of war until bit by bit the water density is overcome a little, meaning more density of wood to push back against and so on until over time the atmosphere wins by squeezing the wood down into the water and now squeezing or pushing down on the water with the water pushing back to now work of squeezing the trapped molecules, leaving the wood super dense compared to what it was.

The first option seems more likely, but I can't quite see how it would work. There might be an interesting test in terms of water-behaviour though.

Let's see if I've said anything that can peak your interest or (hopefully not) whether I've complicated the issue.

I'm willing to keep trying to make better analogies and what not to keep you on track because I know you're really delving into it and trying to figure it out.

No scepti, you are the problem. ANY conclusion or experiment that debunks your position you instantly denounce using any of your standard methods. Quite simply, you are UNTEACHABLE and therefor the antithesis of a scientist. A true scientist learns more from failed experiments that successful ones. You on the other hand learn nothing from any experiment whatsoever.

I'm very protective over my theory and it's not going to go away just because you don't understand it, or like it, or oppose it for reasons only known to yourself - or maybe your peers.

Your claim that you cannot have a vacuum or even a partial vaccuum is beyond ludicrous if only because of the existence of... VACUUM cleaners.

Seriously? 

If denpressure had anything accurate about it, its predictions would be consistent and repeatable.

There's always time. It's only been going a short while and I'm getting the logical brains on-board to bounce of each other to get to the crux.
There's a few that are closing in on seeing how it works. Jane and charming anarchist and a few others are edging closer bit by bit.
You're still trying to get out of the blocks.

So far, not a single aspect of denpressure is provable or repeatable. IN fact, every element of it is easily disproven.

And yet you have no clue how it works.

The mere existence of difference airpressures as altitude exists debunks it primary claim.

No it doesn't. It proves you're here to play games.

And as for the non-existence of gravity... doesnt denpressure fail in every single regard in that matter?

If you knew what it was you'd know that gravity is a fantasy.

  What exactly causes the orbits of the planets in our solar system or the structure of galaxies or anything else in the entire universe?

Nothing, because there are no galaxies or planets. It's a lie. It's just another fantasy you've been sold.

And this might sound like prying, but would you tell us how much education you have particularly in maths and science - assuming any?

I'm sure you'll have your own mind on that.

Ah, ok, thank you.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, when an object meets the water, some might automatically float due to surface area etc. Then those that get pushed under the water are squeezed by the pressure of water, meaning the air trapped within them escapes, and in turn is replaced by the water, meaning it would lose buoyancy (less water would be displaced), and sink as it'd end up denser and would be pushed to the bottom?

If that's right then there might be another experiment, similar to the second one: two objects with equal volume (though not equally porous), with the first being lighter than the second. Then, the first object would be more porous, so if both are submerged for a length of time for all the air to be replaced by water, the lighter object would sink faster if it was brought to the surface again because less water's displaced by it.
I realise it's not a particularly reliable experiment, timing and raising objects to equal heights etc is filled with a wealth of problems as far as reliability goes, just trying to ensure I understand what you're saying.

How can planets be a lie?

What's the variation of atmospheric pressure around us?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 05, 2016, 02:32:52 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.

Would this be a good test?? ^^^It seems to me it would be. I don't have a balance beam but I imagine it would not be hard to get one. The big chamber is in the process of being dye tested and that takes about a week, so it isn't usable yet. Though I have a 35 gallon vacuum chamber that will pull a decent vacuum nothing like the big boy that is about to be functional, but it can get about 1torr maybe a bit lower. I use it for degassing and other things. I would think this would be enough of a vacuum? If not can wait till the monster is functioning.

To me it would seem this test would be quite conclusive. I don't know what other opinions are

Quote from: Woody on August 05, 2016, 11:32:47 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 05, 2016, 02:32:52 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.

Would this be a good test?? ^^^It seems to me it would be. I don't have a balance beam but I imagine it would not be hard to get one. The big chamber is in the process of being dye tested and that takes about a week, so it isn't usable yet. Though I have a 35 gallon vacuum chamber that will pull a decent vacuum nothing like the big boy that is about to be functional, but it can get about 1torr maybe a bit lower. I use it for degassing and other things. I would think this would be enough of a vacuum? If not can wait till the monster is functioning.

To me it would seem this test would be quite conclusive. I don't know what other opinions are

One caveat: don't forget to vacuum seal both items prior to evacuation. Otherwise the low pressure will draw the air, which constitutes part of its weigh, out of the cork.

Quote from: Woody on August 05, 2016, 11:32:47 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 05, 2016, 02:32:52 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.

Would this be a good test?? ^^^It seems to me it would be. I don't have a balance beam but I imagine it would not be hard to get one. The big chamber is in the process of being dye tested and that takes about a week, so it isn't usable yet. Though I have a 35 gallon vacuum chamber that will pull a decent vacuum nothing like the big boy that is about to be functional, but it can get about 1torr maybe a bit lower. I use it for degassing and other things. I would think this would be enough of a vacuum? If not can wait till the monster is functioning.

To me it would seem this test would be quite conclusive. I don't know what other opinions are

For Scepti probably not.  I do not fully understand his reasoning, but I think only a perfect vacuum will suffice for his model.  In his model there is no empty space and everything expands including atoms to fill any voids. He can correct me if I am wrong.

It does not make sense to me.  Since the decrease in pressure can be measured.  I also do not fully understand his reasoning that the air pressure outside the chamber still somehow effects stuff in the chamber.  My understanding is it should be isolated from the effects of the outside air pressure.

I would have suggested using two digital scales, but scepti's model says those scales cease to function accurately in a vacuum.  That is why I recommended a balance scale.  Which could be as simple as attaching the objects to a stick and balancing it before evacuating the chamber.

I do not currently have a vacuum sealing system. If you vacuum seal the items would it be needed to then put them in a vacuum? Seems you could weigh the item before and after less the bags weight?


To woody...

Even at 1 Torr or a bit less like the small chamber can do. That is such a small amount of molecules per cubic foot. However, you are right, I know scepti doesn't like vacuum chambers for whatever reason.

They are one of the easiest things to prove in my eyes. Forget guages, just put a balloon, water, sponge, or god forbid a living creature like a rabbit in there and see what happens. I have done all of these (except the living creature), and then some just playing around during bored time..not to mention all the work purposes I use them for. I have never found a single instance to question them or their function.

I will say I have always wanted to put a cockroach in a glass and see what happens, but even considering what they are I couldn't do it, felt bad. If there was some sort of medical reason maybe, but my own morbid curiosity, I just felt horrible.

I do not currently have a vacuum sealing system. If you vacuum seal the items would it be needed to then put them in a vacuum? Seems you could weigh the item before and after less the bags weight?


To woody...

Even at 1 Torr or a bit less like the small chamber can do. That is such a small amount of molecules per cubic foot. However, you are right, I know scepti doesn't like vacuum chambers for whatever reason.

They are one of the easiest things to prove in my eyes. Forget guages, just put a balloon, water, sponge, or god forbid a living creature like a rabbit in there and see what happens. I have done all of these (except the living creature), and then some just playing around during bored time..not to mention all the work purposes I use them for. I have never found a single instance to question them or their function.

I will say I have always wanted to put a cockroach in a glass and see what happens, but even considering what they are I couldn't do it, felt bad. If there was some sort of medical reason maybe, but my own morbid curiosity, I just felt horrible.

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

Yes, if we do the experiments down at the bottom of the atmosphere where we are under highest atmopsheric pressure at sea level.

Not quite. Gasses achieve equilibrium in any enclosed space. This has been incontrovertibly proven at all levels of altitude. This is because air, being a gas, will expand and form the shape of any container it is placed in. Note that when I say "expand" the actual size of the particles themselves remains constant, the parties just spread out more. In the FE model, gasses are kept in the system by the firmament,  thus creating a closed system. Since there is no other force acting on the atmosphere in the FE model, the gasses should expand to fill the enclosed space.

They are not halted by the firmament, they becomes the dome itself against what we could imagine is a true vacuum beyond.
When I say imagine, I mean it literally because a true vacuum is a none existence of all matter. A nothing.

Yes thank you for the textbook definition of vacuum, I'm glad you understand the concept. You are now telling me that a perfect vacuum (i.e. literally nothing) is somehow stopping all the billions of litres of gas in the atmosphere from diffusing into the vacuum? I am sure you are familiar with the concept, "Nature abhors a vacuum"

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: You place a water balloon on a table. The water within is a pressurized system, kept under pressure by the walls of the balloon. Against the table, the water forms a flat surface which arcs upwards in a very rough model of the Flat Earth model. Remove the physical restraint of the water balloon (or firmament) and the water spills all over the table. This is because fluids move from high pressure systems to low pressure systems. Explain to me why the pressurized atmosphere does not completely diffuse into the zero pressure vacuum if nothing is physically holding it to the earth?

The top the dome would be the part against a true vacuum. Where's the pressure coming from?

Again, why doesn't the gas on the edge of the dome simply diffuse into outer space?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 06, 2016, 02:56:49 AM

Already in your explanation you are describing air particles being drawn downward by an outside force (gravity).

No. You are trying to tell me that I am. I'm telling you about denpressure and the stacking of atmosphere.

I am trying to tell you that gasses don't act in this way. They do not "stack" in the way you are describing, and I do not know why you keep parroting this term. Gasses are in constant flux, perpetually seeking equilibrium, moving from high pressure to low pressure.

 

Being told about gravity and a globe Earth at school is all well and good. It's no more than a story of fiction as far as I'm concerned.
I'm telling you about denpressure because it's real and gravity is not. Gravity is a fantasy as far as I'm concerned but I'm trying to help people understand denpressure by using the most basic talk and analogies I can muster.

It doesn't really seem like you have an open mind. You rejected all of the experimental findings in this thread, without offering a single thought as to what those findings could mean. You subscribe to a theory that ignores the most basic principles of fluid dynamics. You tout this theory as absolute proof, when you don't actually have any proof. You can play mind games all you like but if you want to call denpressure a scientifically sound theory able to compete with the predictability and measurability of gravitation, you are actually going to have to get out of your mum's basement and do some science yourself.

Ah, ok, thank you.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, when an object meets the water, some might automatically float due to surface area etc.

No it's not just down to surface area. It must contain atmospheric pressure.

Then those that get pushed under the water are squeezed by the pressure of water, meaning the air trapped within them escapes, and in turn is replaced by the water, meaning it would lose buoyancy (less water would be displaced), and sink as it'd end up denser and would be pushed to the bottom?

Squeezed to the bottom but essentially, yes.

If that's right then there might be another experiment, similar to the second one: two objects with equal volume (though not equally porous), with the first being lighter than the second. Then, the first object would be more porous, so if both are submerged for a length of time for all the air to be replaced by water, the lighter object would sink faster if it was brought to the surface again because less water's displaced by it.
I realise it's not a particularly reliable experiment, timing and raising objects to equal heights etc is filled with a wealth of problems as far as reliability goes, just trying to ensure I understand what you're saying.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Maybe I'm having a moment.

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Always, ALWAYS pull out in space.

Not quite. Gasses achieve equilibrium in any enclosed space. This has been incontrovertibly proven at all levels of altitude.

Is the atmosphere the same at the top of a high mountain as it is at the bottom?
If not, there goes your equilibrium. It's stacked.

This is because air, being a gas, will expand and form the shape of any container it is placed in.

Yep, in a container it will.

Note that when I say "expand" the actual size of the particles themselves remains constant, the parties just spread out more.

When you say they spread out more, do you mean they expand or do you mean they simply spread out and leave free space?

In the FE model, gasses are kept in the system by the firmament,  thus creating a closed system. Since there is no other force acting on the atmosphere in the FE model, the gasses should expand to fill the enclosed space.

The gases aren't kept in the system by the firmament. The gases simply stop being pushed/squeezed up and simply freeze against a (possibly) a true vacuum.

Yes thank you for the textbook definition of vacuum, I'm glad you understand the concept. You are now telling me that a perfect vacuum (i.e. literally nothing) is somehow stopping all the billions of litres of gas in the atmosphere from diffusing into the vacuum?

nope.

I am sure you are familiar with the concept, "Nature abhors a vacuum"

Yep and in nature there isn't a vacuum, because a vacuum does not and cannot exist to our perception. It can to our imagination.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: You place a water balloon on a table. The water within is a pressurized system, kept under pressure by the walls of the balloon.

Kept under pressure by atmospheric pressure upon the walls of the balloon.

Against the table, the water forms a flat surface which arcs upwards in a very rough model of the Flat Earth model. Remove the physical restraint of the water balloon (or firmament) and the water spills all over the table. This is because fluids move from high pressure systems to low pressure systems.

You are still working under pressure of atmosphere. You're trying to use a balloon analogy to replicate a dome. It's not how it works.

Explain to me why the pressurized atmosphere does not completely diffuse into the zero pressure vacuum if nothing is physically holding it to the earth?

Because it's stacked from the bottom up.

Again, why doesn't the gas on the edge of the dome simply diffuse into outer space?

Because it's stacked from the bottom up and expands till it cannot agitate. IIt then goes dormant and forms the skin. The ice dome.

I am trying to tell you that gasses don't act in this way. They do not "stack" in the way you are describing, and I do not know why you keep parroting this term.

They do stack in the way I'm describing.

Gasses are in constant flux, perpetually seeking equilibrium, moving from high pressure to low pressure.

Yep and that's what's happening from bottom to top but it depends on energy applied to make this happen. That's where the Earth sun comes in.

It doesn't really seem like you have an open mind. You rejected all of the experimental findings in this thread, without offering a single thought as to what those findings could mean.

I'm taking on-board everything that's being said. I am not just going to jump in and accept them as being correct if they do not show a true reflection.
It appears to me that your goal is to smash this theory rather than try and understand it to get it to a favourable position.

You subscribe to a theory that ignores the most basic principles of fluid dynamics.

And what's that?

You tout this theory as absolute proof, when you don't actually have any proof. You can play mind games all you like but if you want to call denpressure a scientifically sound theory able to compete with the predictability and measurability of gravitation, you are actually going to have to get out of your mum's basement and do some science yourself.

If you don't think I have anything to go on then feel free to get on with other things. You're entitled to do and think what you want to but it appears that we won't be making any more in-roads.

Quote from: crutonius on August 06, 2016, 11:21:12 AM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Drats. Well there goes my plan to flash the other astronauts if I ever go on a space walk.

What about an empty soda bottle? Glass or plastic. Would one of those be tough enough?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 06, 2016, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 06, 2016, 11:21:12 AM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Drats. Well there goes my plan to flash the other astronauts if I ever go on a space walk.

What about an empty soda bottle? Glass or plastic. Would one of those be tough enough?

Glass can be made strong enough, though a glass soda bottle would not make it. Plastic, no the cap is the weak link (proven through drunken experiment lol).

You have a result in your head...what was the premise of filling the condom with water? I am a little lost of what you were wanting to test here. If I can get it in my head, maybe we can figure out a reasonable test.

I also have an extra pump and small 12 gallon vacuum i can donate for a while if you want to attempt your own tests. If you have an extra super accurate scale I surely would not be opposed to a temporary trade of such.

I will also warn, alcohol and experiments in a vacuum go hand in hand and never get boring lol. Actually most of the machinery I have can do that, but most require too much dexterity or become a safety hazard when impaired. I worry about myself when the big vacuum that is about to be operational, opens a whole new world stupid lol

Quote from: crutonius on August 06, 2016, 01:32:26 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 06, 2016, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 06, 2016, 11:21:12 AM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Drats. Well there goes my plan to flash the other astronauts if I ever go on a space walk.

What about an empty soda bottle? Glass or plastic. Would one of those be tough enough?

Glass can be made strong enough, though a glass soda bottle would not make it. Plastic, no the cap is the weak link (proven through drunken experiment lol).

You have a result in your head...what was the premise of filling the condom with water? I am a little lost of what you were wanting to test here. If I can get it in my head, maybe we can figure out a reasonable test.

I also have an extra pump and small 12 gallon vacuum i can donate for a while if you want to attempt your own tests. If you have an extra super accurate scale I surely would not be opposed to a temporary trade of such.

I will also warn, alcohol and experiments in a vacuum go hand in hand and never get boring lol. Actually most of the machinery I have can do that, but most require too much dexterity or become a safety hazard when impaired. I worry about myself when the big vacuum that is about to be operational, opens a whole new world stupid lol

I caught the tail end of a back and forth on this thread about weighing objects in a vacuum. I probably should have read it a little better. The gist of it is, I think, weighing something in a vacuum is the best way to test denpressure except that sceppy doesn't believe scales are reliable in a vacuum. Someone proposed balancing two objects in a vacuum, one of them cork and the other metal. My issue with that is that air makes up part of the weight of cork and in a vacuum that air is drawn out which would skew the results.  Which is where the condom comes in because it's air tight except for possibly where the knot at the opening would be. Which is why I suggested filling it partway with water as a way of detecting any possible leak.

But that's a dead end since, as you've pointed out it'll explode in a vacuum.

Really I'm just trying to figure out a way to measure weight in a vacuum in a way that scepti won't object to. But since his objections to just sticking a kitchen scale in a vacuum chamber don't make any damn sense it's proving to be a bit of a challenge.

I'm with Bill Nye on this one. You want to think that you are formulating an alternative theory to that of gravity byt the basic failing is that you need to denounce and ignore 2500 years of science to do so. in 500BC this theory could gain some credence because we couldnt measure pressure, weigh things very accurately nor ddid we have much of a model of the physical universe. But today, you are asking that we throw literally everything we know and can prove away simply to entertain this rubbish idea of yours?  In your febrile mind, there are no planets, no galaxies, no space travel, no vacuum and every single bit of evidence that contradicts you is garbage or faked. There are cave men that would mock your 'thinking' here.  your theory does not match any of our real-world experiences and is so easily debunked that it is childs-play.

Your understanding of molecules and rejection of the atomic structure leads me to ask: how many elements do you think exists? My guess is four - fire, air, water and air.

I am a bible-believing, active Christian and former missionary and youth pastor. You are an embarrassment to all of us who call Christ our Saviour. You are deeply and sadly deluded.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 06, 2016, 01:46:01 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 06, 2016, 01:32:26 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 06, 2016, 01:01:05 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 06, 2016, 11:21:12 AM

I guess you could control for the airless in other ways. I think coating it with silicone sealant might work too.

Okay I think I've got the perfect object to weigh in this experiment. A condom. Basically a balloon but a hell of a lot more durable. Fill it half with water half air. Hang it on the tied side down. That way you can see if you have a leak pretty easy.

This is out of a vacuum right?? The condom would never make it in one. I have broken Kevlar and many other forms of plastic and woven fibers during decompression. The poor latex would never make it in even 50 torr...

Condoms...poor choice of birth control in a vacuum.

Drats. Well there goes my plan to flash the other astronauts if I ever go on a space walk.

What about an empty soda bottle? Glass or plastic. Would one of those be tough enough?

Glass can be made strong enough, though a glass soda bottle would not make it. Plastic, no the cap is the weak link (proven through drunken experiment lol).

You have a result in your head...what was the premise of filling the condom with water? I am a little lost of what you were wanting to test here. If I can get it in my head, maybe we can figure out a reasonable test.

I also have an extra pump and small 12 gallon vacuum i can donate for a while if you want to attempt your own tests. If you have an extra super accurate scale I surely would not be opposed to a temporary trade of such.

I will also warn, alcohol and experiments in a vacuum go hand in hand and never get boring lol. Actually most of the machinery I have can do that, but most require too much dexterity or become a safety hazard when impaired. I worry about myself when the big vacuum that is about to be operational, opens a whole new world stupid lol

I caught the tail end of a back and forth on this thread about weighing objects in a vacuum. I probably should have read it a little better. The gist of it is, I think, weighing something in a vacuum is the best way to test denpressure except that sceppy doesn't believe scales are reliable in a vacuum. Someone proposed balancing two objects in a vacuum, one of them cork and the other metal. My issue with that is that air makes up part of the weight of cork and in a vacuum that air is drawn out which would skew the results.  Which is where the condom comes in because it's air tight except for possibly where the knot at the opening would be. Which is why I suggested filling it partway with water as a way of detecting any possible leak.

But that's a dead end since, as you've pointed out it'll explode in a vacuum.

Really I'm just trying to figure out a way to measure weight in a vacuum in a way that scepti won't object to. But since his objections to just sticking a kitchen scale in a vacuum chamber don't make any damn sense it's proving to be a bit of a challenge.

Isnt the real problem that he objects to anything and everything that might in any way disprove his nonsense? This is the fundamental problem with his approach to experimentation - that he rejects any outcome not to his liking and then fabricates a ludicrous reason for it.