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

It begs the question, what causes the particles to grow in size? Would liquid particles behave in a similar manner? What about solids?

If I understand your model correctly and there is no gaps between stuff ever.  Even in a very near vacuum.

Does the surface area of one molecule in a vacuum increase? 

Yes.

If under your model it does a vacuum flask would not be that effective at reducing conduction.

Why?

Quote from: Woody on August 09, 2016, 01:35:33 AM

If under your model it does a vacuum flask would not be that effective at reducing conduction.

Why?

Things that are touching transfer heat much better than things that are not touching. Have you ever held you hand close to a candle flame, but not touched it? Touch it, see if touching fire is actually hotter than not touching fire.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 01:58:19 AM

Quote from: Woody on August 09, 2016, 01:35:33 AM

If under your model it does a vacuum flask would not be that effective at reducing conduction.

Why?

Things that are touching transfer heat much better than things that are not touching. Have you ever held you hand close to a candle flame, but not touched it? Touch it, see if touching fire is actually hotter than not touching fire.

But you are touching it. You're always touching it if you can feel the friction.

You are touching fire if you are not touching fire? Just because you can feel heated gas particles near the flame? Is this what you think? Sorry you were a little unclear.

By this logic, I am touching the sun if I can feel its warmth?

You are touching fire if you are not touching fire? Just because you can feel heated gas particles near the flame? Is this what you think? Sorry you were a little unclear.

By this logic, I am touching the sun if I can feel its warmth?

He did specify 'friction,' not that unclear.

One question for Scepti, though: when it comes to molecules expanding to fill up a certain environment, etc, are they constrained to a certain shape (eg, being balls of whatever size) or do they just take whatever shape is required?
If the former, the vacuum system makes sense: fewer molecules would actually still limit the amount touching the inner flask. Lots and lots of small molecules could, hypothetically, touch more than just the tip of one big molecule.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 09, 2016, 02:18:12 AM

You are touching fire if you are not touching fire? Just because you can feel heated gas particles near the flame? Is this what you think? Sorry you were a little unclear.

By this logic, I am touching the sun if I can feel its warmth?

He did specify 'friction,' not that unclear.

One question for Scepti, though: when it comes to molecules expanding to fill up a certain environment, etc, are they constrained to a certain shape (eg, being balls of whatever size) or do they just take whatever shape is required?
If the former, the vacuum system makes sense: fewer molecules would actually still limit the amount touching the inner flask. Lots and lots of small molecules could, hypothetically, touch more than just the tip of one big molecule.

This is where it becomes a bit more hard to explain. It's simple enough but it's not at the same time.
Basically it's simple for me because I know what I'm thinking.
Trying to convey my thoughts to others so they understand is harder to do, except for the few like you who are really starting to grasp it.

Ok let's picture the jaw breaker i had as an avatar (remember that?) and picture the layers as super dense to more expanded matter to the outer shell.

The jawbreaker would actually depict the densest molecule or matter due to the layers that have to be peeled, for want of a better word. Basically peel by expansion of all layers pushing each one off, but as that peels off it doesn't just disappear. It forms another molecule and attaches with other like molecules that are doing the very same thing.

I'll leave this with you before I expand (pardon the pun) on this just so you're getting the gist of it. If not, just say and I'll try and make it simpler.

Ok let's picture the jaw breaker i had as an avatar (remember that?) and picture the layers as super dense to more expanded matter to the outer shell.

The jawbreaker would actually depict the densest molecule or matter due to the layers that have to be peeled, for want of a better word. Basically peel by expansion of all layers pushing each one off, but as that peels off it doesn't just disappear. It forms another molecule and attaches with other like molecules that are doing the very same thing.

I'll leave this with you before I expand (pardon the pun) on this just so you're getting the gist of it. If not, just say and I'll try and make it simpler.

I'll admit to thinking of molecules under your model as more like Russian dolls, just because that makes it easy to intuit how they'd combine/split (even if not literally true). Under high pressure, they'd want to occupy less space and form the jawbreakers/fill up the dolls, under low they can safely enter into their 'natural' state of spreading out.
There are obvious queries as to how the molecules combine to form jawbreakers, which you can definitely answer if you want to, but for the most part I'm more interested in the mechanisms resulting from the system. So, yep, happy to see the expansion, I think.

Under high pressure, they'd want to occupy less space and form the jawbreakers/fill up the dolls, under low they can safely enter into their 'natural' state of spreading out.
There are obvious queries as to how the molecules combine to form jawbreakers, which you can definitely answer if you want to, but for the most part I'm more interested in the mechanisms resulting from the system. So, yep, happy to see the expansion, I think.

What exactly are you struggling with as such, just so I can get a grip on it as I've been doing some work and lost all track.

Quote from: Jane on August 09, 2016, 04:43:50 AM

Under high pressure, they'd want to occupy less space and form the jawbreakers/fill up the dolls, under low they can safely enter into their 'natural' state of spreading out.
There are obvious queries as to how the molecules combine to form jawbreakers, which you can definitely answer if you want to, but for the most part I'm more interested in the mechanisms resulting from the system. So, yep, happy to see the expansion, I think.

What exactly are you struggling with as such, just so I can get a grip on it as I've been doing some work and lost all track.

Initially, my main question was just related to the details of how the molecules expand: do they keep the same shape, or do they genuinely just increase as best they can to fill in the area? (I'm assuming the former, just being sure).

Actually, this is vaguely related to the filling-a-jawkbreaker issue, I think. If the molecules are, say, balls with one hole in, then it would make sense for high pressure to make some get slowly squished inside others, if they could take shapes other than the overall ball, and would similarly make sense for them to get expanded out. Though in turn, this would mean the molecules could expand to non-ball-like shapes, and the vacuum flask issue brought up earlier seems relevant as the few molecules left would expand and with no shape constraint there'd be no reason for the surface area connecting the inside/outside to decrease.
While if the molecules are trapped in a set shape (I'm using balls based on convention and the jawbreaker analogy, something similar would hold for each shape), regardless of size, then the flask issue would make sense, but the way they combine wouldn't so much, as you'd need them to shrink/grow at varying rates, and when one's inside another you'd need the inside one to shrink.
Unless they're all different shapes, but that seems less likely. Or they're cups, cup-shapes might work, if they were perfect hemispheres. Or less conventional means of moleules combining...

Ok, that's a lot of rambling/speculation. The gist is:

What shape are the molecules, or do they not have any constant, fixed shape? (Size notwithstanding).
How is it pressure would allow them to combine? Is there a special mechanism, or is it just based on one slotting into another?

Initially, my main question was just related to the details of how the molecules expand: do they keep the same shape, or do they genuinely just increase as best they can to fill in the area? (I'm assuming the former, just being sure).

If you use the washing up suds analogy, you can see how there's any amount of different shaped bubbles and looking closer you can see that none are a perfect sphere; more like a semi sphere or less than that.
Basically they're in varied shapes on the larger scale by eye. The reality of the smaller scale could be hexagon shaped but we won't go into that.

Anyway looking at the washing up suds, you know that inside each bubble are denser and smaller molecules as well as what is making up the larger bubble being even more molecules.
It's a massive infinite type molecule stack within a stack and so on.

Actually, this is vaguely related to the filling-a-jawkbreaker issue, I think. If the molecules are, say, balls with one hole in, then it would make sense for high pressure to make some get slowly squished inside others, if they could take shapes other than the overall ball, and would similarly make sense for them to get expanded out. Though in turn, this would mean the molecules could expand to non-ball-like shapes, and the vacuum flask issue brought up earlier seems relevant as the few molecules left would expand and with no shape constraint there'd be no reason for the surface area connecting the inside/outside to decrease.

While if the molecules are trapped in a set shape (I'm using balls based on convention and the jawbreaker analogy, something similar would hold for each shape), regardless of size, then the flask issue would make sense, but the way they combine wouldn't so much, as you'd need them to shrink/grow at varying rates, and when one's inside another you'd need the inside one to shrink.

Imagine having a hollow sponge type ball and many other sponge balls similar to it.
You push on ball into the other and then another ball into the other. You keep doing this until you literally cannot push another sponge ball inside.
That's the end of your energy force.
Along comes a weightlifter who manages to push quite a few more sponge balls into that sponge of yours. He has more energy force.

And so on and so on.
Ok, now to keep those sponge balls from expanding, they have to be under immense pressure, which they are in the weightlifters fist.
Now we need more energy to expand the hand that holds the dense sponge balls. If released with lots of energy applied then we have an explosion of sponge balls (molecules)  expanding out of the sponge ball but they would be hitting other like sponge balls and appearing to attach to them as half a sphere on half a sphere connected to half a sphere.
Think of a bramble or a raspberry.



 

Unless they're all different shapes, but that seems less likely. Or they're cups, cup-shapes might work, if they were perfect hemispheres. Or less conventional means of moleules combining...

You can never get a perfect sphere because all molecules/matter are always attached with no free space.

 

Ok, that's a lot of rambling/speculation. The gist is:

What shape are the molecules, or do they not have any constant, fixed shape? (Size notwithstanding).

No fixed shape because all molecules are moving. They are always agitating due to always pushing against each other in a resistance caused by all of them trying to expand against each other. The denser molecules/matter will expand into less dense molecules and push them up, creating heat.
The faster molecules are pushed up by denser molecules, the more friction is created, which means that you would see super expanded molecules in a friction burn that your eyes see as fire.

How is it pressure would allow them to combine? Is there a special mechanism, or is it just based on one slotting into another?

Let's take a tree trunk near a metal fence (for instance). At first the trunk grows up and out and gets thicker and more dense by the push from the ground into the atmosphere which is resisting that push into it.
The fence is now being pushed away and over time the fence becomes part of the tree. the tree pushes into it. It does this because the fence created a massive resistance to the trees push on it.
Molecules are the same. The tree and the fence are just a mass of more dense molecules than the atmosphere we stand in.

Feel free to keep digging if I'm not being clear enough.

It begs the question, what causes the particles to grow in size? Would liquid particles behave in a similar manner? What about solids?

Which leads us to another can of worms: chemistry.  We can breathe on Mt. Everest(barely).  We can breath at the Dead Sea and in a Hyperbaric chamber.  Our bodies remain the same size yet the air molecules have changed size several times over again?  How are we metabolizing oxygen at this point? 

So we have to add chemistry to the list of sciences that are incompatible with Denpressure along with physics and relativity and probably a few others I can't think of right now.

Let's set aside the truth argument and go purely with practicality.  What the hell good is this hypothesis?  You have to ditch the material sciences that we used to build the modern world to embrace a hypothesis that nobody, not even sceptimatic, can seem to demonstrate how it describes reality in any observable fashion.

So, the raw 'stuff' that makes up molecules are essentially stretchy bits and pieces that are topologically identical to a disc (basically: can be made from a disc if you could stretch and crush and twist it however you wanted, the one thing you can't do is add or remove a hole, so you couldn't make a ball, nor could you make an annulus, but you could make any polygon or squiggle or cup...)
The molecules with more packed within them exert more force (and that does explain the vacuum flask case, I'd assume; the unpacked few molecules within, though the surface area remains the same, there's less potential without all that extra energy stored inside them).
And molecules always expand to fill empty space, so there would be no 'vacuum.'
Molecules require energy to expand, which they typically get as heat from the Sun, and if you apply pressure this energy becomes potential, all packed within other molecules, so the removal of that pressure allows the potential to become real, and they'll expand separately.

That's what I'm understanding at the moment.
If that's right, then related questions:
In their most basic, unpacked forms, are molecules the same 'size'? I know they can expand, but if you unpeeled them to be, say, discs of a set thickness, would the area be the same? (Thinking in terms of say, volume).
On a related note, is shape and what they contain the only way these molecules vary, or could you get charges etc, or anything else that could set one apart from another?
And finally, what is it that would distinguish, say, hydrogen from helium? (I'm not asking for a periodic table, that'd be silly, just an idea of what sets chemicals apart. is it just down to how many 'layers' are in the jawbreaker, or is there more to it, particularly if there were other ways to tell the basic-molecules apart).

So, the raw 'stuff' that makes up molecules are essentially stretchy bits and pieces that are topologically identical to a disc (basically: can be made from a disc if you could stretch and crush and twist it however you wanted, the one thing you can't do is add or remove a hole, so you couldn't make a ball, nor could you make an annulus, but you could make any polygon or squiggle or cup...)
The molecules with more packed within them exert more force (and that does explain the vacuum flask case, I'd assume; the unpacked few molecules within, though the surface area remains the same, there's less potential without all that extra energy stored inside them).
And molecules always expand to fill empty space, so there would be no 'vacuum.'
Molecules require energy to expand, which they typically get as heat from the Sun, and if you apply pressure this energy becomes potential, all packed within other molecules, so the removal of that pressure allows the potential to become real, and they'll expand separately.

That's what I'm understanding at the moment.
If that's right, then related questions:
In their most basic, unpacked forms, are molecules the same 'size'? I know they can expand, but if you unpeeled them to be, say, discs of a set thickness, would the area be the same? (Thinking in terms of say, volume).
On a related note, is shape and what they contain the only way these molecules vary, or could you get charges etc, or anything else that could set one apart from another?
And finally, what is it that would distinguish, say, hydrogen from helium? (I'm not asking for a periodic table, that'd be silly, just an idea of what sets chemicals apart. is it just down to how many 'layers' are in the jawbreaker, or is there more to it, particularly if there were other ways to tell the basic-molecules apart).

I'm going to do a few diagrams of molecules in states of density/ compression/expansion and how friction would work.
I'll also do one that would show different elements, like the hydrogen and helium. It will be basic but will maybe give you a better understanding.

You're not doing too bad in what you said, although the disc part I'm not with you on.
 I'll try and do the little diagrams tomorrow. They will be particularly for you because I think only you out of the global Earth crew will sort of get it, whether you go with it or not.

Which leads us to another can of worms: chemistry.  We can breathe on Mt. Everest(barely).  We can breath at the Dead Sea and in a Hyperbaric chamber.  Our bodies remain the same size yet the air molecules have changed size several times over again?  How are we metabolizing oxygen at this point? 

Our bodies do not remain the same size. You think they do because you never think that our bodies expand.
A simple starter.
At a higher altitude your lungs expand much more to take in much more volume of atmosphere because your body is trying to equalise the pressure it was in. Basically you're acclimatising.
Why do you think your fingers swell up, etc?
It's your body expanding to equalise it's surroundings.
You are no different to the balloon in a chamber as the pressure is lowered. You see the balloon expand.

So we have to add chemistry to the list of sciences that are incompatible with Denpressure along with physics and relativity and probably a few others I can't think of right now.

Everything is compatible with denpressure. Everything that works in reality.
The only things that aren't are the bullshit theories.

Let's set aside the truth argument and go purely with practicality.  What the hell good is this hypothesis?  You have to ditch the material sciences that we used to build the modern world to embrace a hypothesis that nobody, not even sceptimatic, can seem to demonstrate how it describes reality in any observable fashion.

We built the modern world because of denpressure. That's the reality. the only issue is they changed what atmospheric pressure upon density does to gravity and mass on mass.
They done this because denpressure does not cater for a lot of bullshit they wanted to feed us...including fantasy space and whatnot.

I like the soap suds analogy. It ensures zero empty space between bubbles (particles). If you think about particles having a rigid shape (be it spheres or what have you) then there will be empty space, even if two particles are touching. Think about a gumball machine. All the gumballs are touching, but since they are rounded off there is empty space between them.

Now back to the thermos. If, inside the thermos, the gas particles are connected in this way, they would transmit heat more efficiently than if there were particles that are a constant size with empty space between.

To explain this concept, think about an electric heating element, like an electric stove top. Heat up the stove to high heat, until you can see the coil turn red. Hold your hand over the range, but don't touch it. In both models, gas particles are heated, increasing the air pressure directly above the stove. This increased pressure pushes the heated particles outward in all directions. When these hot particles touch your hand, they generate friction, and you feel heat.

Now physically touch the red-hot stovetop. Since you are directly touching it, without the air to buffer some of the heat energy, your hand will receive much more of the heat energy than if you hadn't touched it at all. Therefore, to efficiently cook your hand, you must apply it directly to the heat source.

Another analogy would be a campfire. If you hold a marshmallow over the flame without touching the actual fire, it will gradually toast and turn brown. For a more direct approach, stick the marshmallow directly into the fire. It will get hotter, faster.

Compare these principles to the thermos. In the denpressure model, the air expands to physically fill every bit of empty space. Since each particle is directly touching each other, heat conducts more efficiently. In the RE model, particles have empty space in between them (especially in a partial-vacuum), meaning heat will diffuse less efficiently.

I'm going to do a few diagrams of molecules in states of density/ compression/expansion and how friction would work.
I'll also do one that would show different elements, like the hydrogen and helium. It will be basic but will maybe give you a better understanding.

You're not doing too bad in what you said, although the disc part I'm not with you on.
 I'll try and do the little diagrams tomorrow. They will be particularly for you because I think only you out of the global Earth crew will sort of get it, whether you go with it or not.

Yeah, probably shouldn't have brought topology into it. the idea was basically that every molecule, if it's of that sponge-ball-with-a-hole type shape can be contorted to give a flat disc, just as it can be contorted to give hexagons and all manner of shapes, but couldn't give, say, a tube (because you'd either need to poke a new hole in it, or seal two sides together).

Thank you for the diagrams, then, I look forward to them.
I think my only question that can't be answered by diagram ought to be a quick one, just yes or no. In their most basic state (all unpeeled etc), is there any way to distinguish a molecule from another?
Given shape can easily vary, I was just wondering if some molecules were naturally heavier (even if unpeeled), or had any other defining characteristics.

They done this [sic] because denpressure does not cater for a lot of bullshit they wanted to feed us...including fantasy space and whatnot.

How do you know phase diagrams of helium and hydrogen are bullshit if you haven't even studied them? To be a scientist is to be open minded. It seems as though you have your mind made up already.

Yeah, how does helium become a solid at the top? There is no way for it to happen at 0 pressure.

I think my only question that can't be answered by diagram ought to be a quick one, just yes or no. In their most basic state (all unpeeled etc), is there any way to distinguish a molecule from another?
Given shape can easily vary, I was just wondering if some molecules were naturally heavier (even if unpeeled), or had any other defining characteristics.

It has been proven undeniably that hydrogen and helium tend to remain at high altitude. Given what we know about density, we can assume that these particles have less density than the particles that tend to stay near the surface (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide)

Since all atoms are made of the same 3 building blocks, we can assume larger particles can exert more energy than smaller ones.

I like the soap suds analogy. It ensures zero empty space between bubbles (particles). If you think about particles having a rigid shape (be it spheres or what have you) then there will be empty space, even if two particles are touching. Think about a gumball machine. All the gumballs are touching, but since they are rounded off there is empty space between them.

Now back to the thermos. If, inside the thermos, the gas particles are connected in this way, they would transmit heat more efficiently than if there were particles that are a constant size with empty space between.

Empty space cannot happen. It just can't, but anyway.
The expanded molecules in my model are under much less compression in the thermos wall gap.
This means they are not giving rise to much friction. They simply don't need to because they are much less of matter and much more expanded and so much weaker in vibration/friction and the frequency of it.
Add a silver reflector to that and you cover all avenues of convection, conduction and radiation.

To explain this concept, think about an electric heating element, like an electric stove top. Heat up the stove to high heat, until you can see the coil turn red. Hold your hand over the range, but don't touch it. In both models, gas particles are heated, increasing the air pressure directly above the stove. This increased pressure pushes the heated particles outward in all directions. When these hot particles touch your hand, they generate friction, and you feel heat.

Yep because the energy of the ring is expanding dense atmosphere and causing more dense atmosphere to squeeze back to equalise and in doing so it also becomes expanded and is squeezed up quite fast depending on the amount of energy applied from the ring.
Put your hand there and you stop the expanded molecules which build up and create a pressure against your palm. the super agitation of the molecules is your palm being atmospherically friction burned. It's like someone lightly sanding your palm and your palm adding coolant (sweat) to keep it bearable.

Now physically touch the red-hot stovetop. Since you are directly touching it, without the air to buffer some of the heat energy, your hand will receive much more of the heat energy than if you hadn't touched it at all. Therefore, to efficiently cook your hand, you must apply it directly to the heat source.

Yep, just the same energy but this time not allowing that energy to have an inrush and squeeze of dense matter as well as your hands not being able to sweat. the end result is massive friction burning by super vibration.

Another analogy would be a campfire. If you hold a marshmallow over the flame without touching the actual fire, it will gradually toast and turn brown. For a more direct approach, stick the marshmallow directly into the fire. It will get hotter, faster.

Same as above.

Compare these principles to the thermos. In the denpressure model, the air expands to physically fill every bit of empty space. Since each particle is directly touching each other, heat conducts more efficiently. In the RE model, particles have empty space in between them (especially in a partial-vacuum), meaning heat will diffuse less efficiently.

Now think about a chamber where pressure is lowered until you can't hear a bell ringing in it. Why?
It's all about stopping pressure of friction/vibration to such a degree as to slow down energy flow.

Let's make this into a simple analogy.
Imagine sandblasting a metal sheet at high pressure. You soon have that sheet clean of rust but also you feel the warmth of it.
Now imagine replacing the sand with polystyrene balls and trying to do the same thing.. Obviously we know that the metal would still be rusted.

Now imagine in both those cases that power was agitating inside the cavity of the flask walls. The sand would carry the heat but the polystyrene would insulate it.

Try and look into that analogy very carefully.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 10:42:00 AM

I'm going to do a few diagrams of molecules in states of density/ compression/expansion and how friction would work.
I'll also do one that would show different elements, like the hydrogen and helium. It will be basic but will maybe give you a better understanding.

You're not doing too bad in what you said, although the disc part I'm not with you on.
 I'll try and do the little diagrams tomorrow. They will be particularly for you because I think only you out of the global Earth crew will sort of get it, whether you go with it or not.

Yeah, probably shouldn't have brought topology into it. the idea was basically that every molecule, if it's of that sponge-ball-with-a-hole type shape can be contorted to give a flat disc, just as it can be contorted to give hexagons and all manner of shapes, but couldn't give, say, a tube (because you'd either need to poke a new hole in it, or seal two sides together).

Thank you for the diagrams, then, I look forward to them.
I think my only question that can't be answered by diagram ought to be a quick one, just yes or no. In their most basic state (all unpeeled etc), is there any way to distinguish a molecule from another?
Given shape can easily vary, I was just wondering if some molecules were naturally heavier (even if unpeeled), or had any other defining characteristics.

The answer is actually no.


Now this is going to sound silly so I can't just leave it with a no.
Think about this.
If I gave you a ball of plasticine and asked you to construct as many different things as you can, you could build all kinds of things, right?
Now each thing would consist of one thing. One piece of matter.

Like I said, it sounds crazy and knowing what we all know, it doesn't bear thinking about as a minor thought. This is basically how it would come across with many people and who could blame them.

We are talking about density of matter. We are talking about  what makes hydrogen and helium so different?
Obviously science can cite " oh it's because of this extra molecules of blah blah"...you get my gist.

Go and take a look at a jellyfish.
We can't fathom out what the hell they are because they are in real basic form.
Hydrogen turns to water as a by-product.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 09, 2016, 10:51:45 AM

They done this [sic] because denpressure does not cater for a lot of bullshit they wanted to feed us...including fantasy space and whatnot.

How do you know phase diagrams of helium and hydrogen are bullshit if you haven't even studied them? To be a scientist is to be open minded. It seems as though you have your mind made up already.

No, I haven't. My mind is going back over. I'm going right back to basics, because that's the onkly way to sweep bullshit back to where it belongs and can leave the sifted truth on the table for all those with a logical mind to see and hopefully those who are hypnotised by severe indoctrination from early age to present, can start to think more clearly.

Empty space cannot happen. It just can't, but anyway.

You have yet to explain how you know this. Have you examined particles and how they behave?

The expanded molecules in my model are under much less compression in the thermos wall gap.
This means they are not giving rise to much friction. They simply don't need to because they are much less of matter and much more expanded and so much weaker in vibration/friction and the frequency of it.

The notion that each particle has less matter is incorrect. Even though they expand, they should still have the same amount of matter. Would you say that a balloon has more or less matter when inflated?

Add a silver reflector to that and you cover all avenues of convection, conduction and radiation.

Don't know what you're talking about here. Elaborate please.

Yep because the energy of the ring is expanding dense atmosphere and causing more dense atmosphere to squeeze back to equalise and in doing so it also becomes expanded and is squeezed up quite fast depending on the amount of energy applied from the ring.
Put your hand there and you stop the expanded molecules which build up and create a pressure against your palm. the super agitation of the molecules is your palm being atmospherically friction burned. It's like someone lightly sanding your palm and your palm adding coolant (sweat) to keep it bearable.

Same as above.

Glad I understand your meaning.

Now think about a chamber where pressure is lowered until you can't hear a bell ringing in it. Why?
It's all about stopping pressure of friction/vibration to such a degree as to slow down energy flow.

I hope you realize a near vacuum explains the silence a bit better, but if not please consider the following analogy.

Let's make this into a simple analogy.
Imagine sandblasting a metal sheet at high pressure. You soon have that sheet clean of rust but also you feel the warmth of it.
Now imagine replacing the sand with polystyrene balls and trying to do the same thing.. Obviously we know that the metal would still be rusted.

Now imagine in both those cases that power was agitating inside the cavity of the flask walls. The sand would carry the heat but the polystyrene would insulate it.

Try and look into that analogy very carefully.

OK let's look at a similar analogy, using newtons cradle. We will still use polystyrene balls, but instead of sand let's use aluminum spheres. Both spheres will cause the final ball to move, but the aluminum one is more efficient at transferring energy.

Now, separate the balls so they are no longer touching. Does the final ball receive energy from the first ball? Only if you push it hard enough.

Hopefully this analogy perfectly describes the difference in the transfer of energy between the two models.

It has been proven undeniably that hydrogen and helium tend to remain at high altitude. Given what we know about density, we can assume that these particles have less density than the particles that tend to stay near the surface (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide)

Since all atoms are made of the same 3 building blocks, we can assume larger particles can exert more energy than smaller ones.

Building block wise, I don't think that's the case for this model. Lower-density has been pretty well defined though. I'm just wondering if there's more to it than that.

The answer is actually no.

Now this is going to sound silly so I can't just leave it with a no.
Think about this.
If I gave you a ball of plasticine and asked you to construct as many different things as you can, you could build all kinds of things, right?
Now each thing would consist of one thing. One piece of matter.

Like I said, it sounds crazy and knowing what we all know, it doesn't bear thinking about as a minor thought. This is basically how it would come across with many people and who could blame them.

We are talking about density of matter. We are talking about  what makes hydrogen and helium so different?
Obviously science can cite " oh it's because of this extra molecules of blah blah"...you get my gist.

Go and take a look at a jellyfish.
We can't fathom out what the hell they are because they are in real basic form.
Hydrogen turns to water as a by-product.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

Doesn't sound silly at all (it's what I thought, just checking), I can definitely see how that one building block could give rise to all manner of things. A different amount of layers, different densities, would give different results and different properties. (I'm assuming shape isn't the relevant factor because we don't seem to observe chemicals changing dependent on the vessel they're in, or at lower concentrations).
So, yep, I'm with you (up to the jellyfish at least).

If you want to get technical, then there are a lot of questions as to what would give rise to those properties (eg: why would x number of layers react with y number of layers, but not z number of layers), but that's less relevant to denpressure and getting quite off-track, so I'll understand if you want to curtail that discussion here given how much else is going on.

no. You are going against all discovered chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics.

That's because you are not allowing yourself to look deeper into the basics.
To you, a chemical reaction is complicated by sets of different matter mixed.
In a way you are correct but it's different densities of matter.

This is how hydrogen burns.

It follows the law of conservation of energy. Do you think it doesn't work this way?

The answer is actually no.


Now this is going to sound silly so I can't just leave it with a no.
Think about this.
If I gave you a ball of plasticine and asked you to construct as many different things as you can, you could build all kinds of things, right?
Now each thing would consist of one thing. One piece of matter.

Like I said, it sounds crazy and knowing what we all know, it doesn't bear thinking about as a minor thought. This is basically how it would come across with many people and who could blame them.

We are talking about density of matter. We are talking about  what makes hydrogen and helium so different?
Obviously science can cite " oh it's because of this extra molecules of blah blah"...you get my gist.

Go and take a look at a jellyfish.
We can't fathom out what the hell they are because they are in real basic form.
Hydrogen turns to water as a by-product.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

You are showing your ignorance of the RE model. First, Hydrogen is an element made up of hydrogen atoms. These atoms can form covalent bonds with other atoms,  making molecules.

The atoms themselves are different sizes because of the varying number of subatomic particles Protons and Neutrons (similar size & density) and electrons (negligable size and density).

You incorrectly guessed Science's answer for why hydrogen and helium are different, but you failed to give your own answer.

You make all these analogies, describing things you somehow know. You never cite sources. Am I to assume that you figured this out all by yourself? Can you not explain your reasoning?

Doesn't sound silly at all (it's what I thought, just checking), I can definitely see how that one building block could give rise to all manner of things. A different amount of layers, different densities, would give different results and different properties. (I'm assuming shape isn't the relevant factor because we don't seem to observe chemicals changing dependent on the vessel they're in, or at lower concentrations).
So, yep, I'm with you (up to the jellyfish at least).

If you want to get technical, then there are a lot of questions as to what would give rise to those properties (eg: why would x number of layers react with y number of layers, but not z number of layers), but that's less relevant to denpressure and getting quite off-track, so I'll understand if you want to curtail that discussion here given how much else is going on.

In the RE model, electric currents are described as freely flowing electrons. If electrons don't exist in this model, where does electricity come from?