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

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 16, 2016, 09:05:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 16, 2016, 02:43:43 AM

In the system you're told to accept, you have FREE flowing atoms that have empty space inside. It's so effing nonsensical as to beggar total and utter belief.

You are being closed-minded again. You claim that empty space is an utter fallacy. I still don't understand why empty space cannot exist.

Also, if you could find an element (oxygen, Hydrogen or nitrogen for example, but you could use any element you wish) that is less dense as a solid than it is as a gas.

As many people pointed out, the video you offered as proof doesn't count as an example because:

1. There were 2 different materials used, CO₂ and aluminum (or tin, it wasn't clearly defined)

2. The shape of the foil accounted for air inside the boat. If you crumple the boat, it would sink like any other solid would.

The above bold should give you the biggest hint as to why denpressure is the real working model.

Plus, you need to have some rudimentary maths to model the  way it mimics what the rest of us call gravity.

That bit isn't actually too hard. Denpressure seems to basically rely on a principle akin to buoyancy, and buoyancy is found by an equation of the form density*volume*g, and density times volume gives a mass, and we all know what g is.

Quote from: sokarul on August 12, 2016, 09:26:01 AM

You claimed that when you let pressure out of a gas cylinder the "atoms" inside expand to take up the space. This will lead to atoms expand to great sizes.

So I ask again, how does something measured in nanometers expand to meters in size?

What you fail to grasp is the amount of molecules making up a compressed air cylinder.
You're also not grasping the fact that there are still many many molecules still inside a compressed air cylinder once it was expended, because it still holds atmospheric equalised pressure, which means many many many SMALL molecules making it up.

Evacuate more and you still have many molecules that are small but much more expanded and under much less compressed friction, taking up that space.
Simple as that  and if you can't understand that then I suggest you just accept what you were mind trained to accept.

Remember scepti uses his own definition(s) of density.

Bouyancy is a product of gravity....then again so is air pressure....presumably when you say "akin to bouyancy" you mean not like bouyancy at all?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 17, 2016, 07:41:32 AM

Remember scepti uses his own definition(s) of density.

Bouyancy is a product of gravity....then again so is air pressure....presumably when you say "akin to bouyancy" you mean not like bouyancy at all?

I'm acknowledging that, but the gist of the definition is similar enough.

The air pressure Scepti relies on is very different to the gravity-based one we normally think of.

Quote from: Jane on August 17, 2016, 07:59:02 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 17, 2016, 07:41:32 AM

Remember scepti uses his own definition(s) of density.

Bouyancy is a product of gravity....then again so is air pressure....presumably when you say "akin to bouyancy" you mean not like bouyancy at all?

I'm acknowledging that, but the gist of the definition is similar enough.

Really?  Which one are you using then?

Quote

The air pressure Scepti relies on is very different to the gravity-based one we normally think of.

Except it isn't, not really.  The whole "stacking" schnizz relies on gravity, despite his refusal to aknowledge this.

Really?  Which one are you using then?

Except it isn't, not really.  The whole "stacking" schnizz relies on gravity, despite his refusal to aknowledge this.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 17, 2016, 08:35:52 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 17, 2016, 07:59:02 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 17, 2016, 07:41:32 AM

Remember scepti uses his own definition(s) of density.

Bouyancy is a product of gravity....then again so is air pressure....presumably when you say "akin to bouyancy" you mean not like bouyancy at all?

I'm acknowledging that, but the gist of the definition is similar enough.

Really?  Which one are you using then?

Quote

The air pressure Scepti relies on is very different to the gravity-based one we normally think of.

Except it isn't, not really.  The whole "stacking" schnizz relies on gravity, despite his refusal to aknowledge this.

How can stacking rely on gravity when it stacks from bottom up? Gravity is said to be a pulling force but nobody seems to know what the hell this pulling force is. All we get is mass attracts mass. It's so frigging nonsensical and yet people go with it for no other reason than mainstream indoctrination.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 17, 2016, 08:35:52 AM

Really?  Which one are you using then?

It's not immediately transferable because the molecules he uses are different, but the basic gist of density is how many basic molecule-parts are involved.

Quote

Except it isn't, not really.  The whole "stacking" schnizz relies on gravity, despite his refusal to aknowledge this.

Not actually the case. I'll admit that bit did take me a bit to realise, but the stacking's more a description of the layout than the mechanism.

The air is set up like a stack, due to heat under his model,

That's not a definition, just a vague statement - sounds more like a definition of mass anyway.

I get this, but why do things stack in a particular direction?  Why aren't we walking on the dome looking down on earth?

Heat?  This is new to me....can you explain?

Riddle me this: I went for a hike the other day - 10 miles from inland to a cliff.  I'm standing on a cliff and the air pressure is equal all around me.  I then stepped off the cliff (the air pressure is still equal) and plunged into the sea.  Why did this happen?  Why didn't I "fall" towards the dome, or shoot off sideways?

I have thought long and hard about the bold part. Boats can float on water because of buoyancy, or the ship's relative density when compared to water. The same principle applies to the little foil boat and the CO₂ . Under the denpressure model, density and air pressure create the illusion of weight. Therefore, objects that are more buoyant should appear to "weigh" less than objects that are more buoyant. Am I grasping this?

The rest of my point still stands. You claim that, at the edge of the dome, air is under the least amount of pressure possible. Air particles under miniscule amounts of pressure will expand, according to your model. When these particles reach their lowest possible density they somehow freeze to become solid. This would mean that the particles can somehow be both:

1. In a solid state
2. [EDIT]Less dense than surrounding gases

Explain how this can happen under your model, because as far as I know substances tend to become more dense while in the solid state as opposed to the gaseous state.

This would mean that the particles can somehow be both:

1. In a solid state
2. [EDIT]Less dense than surrounding gases

Explain how this can happen under your model, because as far as I know substances tend to become more dense while in the solid state as opposed to the gaseous state.

The model seems to be lacking evidence,

He's just saying that objects under low pressure expand. If you accept that as a law, then what he's saying follows pretty easily.

It might be easier to think in terms of threshold. You can make an object solid by lowering the temperature, or increasing the pressure on it. At a higher pressure, it'd take much more heat to melt an object.

Scepti's just saying the opposite holds too: at a much lower pressure, it'd take a tiny amount of heat to melt/boil an element. Get cooler than that, you'd end up with a solid at this low pressure.

That being said, decreased density might not be necessary. It solidifies, gets denser, falls (air rushing up to replace it and freeze in turn), evaporates, rises... leading to a constantly replenished dome.

Why would I accept it as truth? Because Scepti says so? Aren't FE'supporters trying to ward AGAINST blind indoctrination??

Despite ANY studies EVER coming to this conclusion? I should believe Scepti even though what he says is the OPPOSITE of what we experience in reality?

The free-floating frozen particles you describe don't sound like a dome to me. It sounds like you are describing convection currents, similar to how rainfall occurs. Do you see a dome made of ice? No, the ice in the atmosphere falls to the earth as snow (or if it's warm enough, water).

The same would happen with hydrogen or helium. Frozen hydrogen is over 800x more dense than gaseous hydrogen. Helium is even more dense as a solid. If frozen, it would plummet through the air until friction causes it to melt and vaporize again.

Again I will point out the fact that the only people who were able to freeze helium did so because of incredibly high pressure, yet scepti thinks the opposite is true for no reason other than it supports his theoretical reasoning.

Just think of it as a thought experiment rather than a replacement for all knowledge.

This "breathing dome" would do nothing to prohibit rockets from leaving the earth's atmosphere, as it is not solid.

So now Scepti and Papa Legba and Heiwa agree on something. The circle is now complete.

Quote from: fliggs on August 17, 2016, 03:45:27 AM

Plus, you need to have some rudimentary maths to model the  way it mimics what the rest of us call gravity.

That bit isn't actually too hard. Denpressure seems to basically rely on a principle akin to buoyancy, and buoyancy is found by an equation of the form density*volume*g, and density times volume gives a mass, and we all know what g is. There are a couple of alterations that might be needed, but there is a resemblance.
It certainly could be manipulated to give the right form.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 17, 2016, 08:35:52 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 17, 2016, 07:59:02 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 17, 2016, 07:41:32 AM

Remember scepti uses his own definition(s) of density.

Bouyancy is a product of gravity....then again so is air pressure....presumably when you say "akin to bouyancy" you mean not like bouyancy at all?

I'm acknowledging that, but the gist of the definition is similar enough.

Really?  Which one are you using then?

Quote

The air pressure Scepti relies on is very different to the gravity-based one we normally think of.

Except it isn't, not really.  The whole "stacking" schnizz relies on gravity, despite his refusal to aknowledge this.

How can stacking rely on gravity when it stacks from bottom up? Gravity is said to be a pulling force but nobody seems to know what the hell this pulling force is. All we get is mass attracts mass. It's so frigging nonsensical and yet people go with it for no other reason than mainstream indoctrination.

Quote from: Jane on August 17, 2016, 11:33:24 AM

Just think of it as a thought experiment rather than a replacement for all knowledge.

I dislike this thought experiment. In this thought experiment, Sceptimatic is Lord God Almighty, physics is his plaything and NOBODY UNDERSTANDS IT BUT HIM.

This "breathing dome" would do nothing to prohibit rockets from leaving the earth's atmosphere, as it is not solid.

Jane understands a lot of what I'm saying because she's took the time to logically look at the simplicity of it and as straightforward as that may seem, it's the hardest thing anyone can do, because most minds are saturated in a complicated so called scientific model that appears to wipe out any rival.

Jane doesn't adhere to my model. She goes with the global model but has the common sense and the logical mind to look deeply into alternates. Some of you lot should take a leaf out of her book and try to understand it all, even as a personal thought experiment and see where it brings you over time.

It matters not to me what you decide as it's entirely your choice in which way you approach and adhere to a theory/hypothesis - but seeing as your globe model is all mapped out for you with nowhere else to go with it, it seems a pointless exercise to simply keep plugging it like a stuck record, with no physical educational gains.

I'd be delighted if Jane carries on looking deeply into my model, because she is the only person who just about fully grasps what it's about. She's managed this because she's been clever enough to not allow conflict of interest to scupper her thoughts.

I'd like to say thanks to Jane for aiding me in explaining how my model works, even though the physical proof is extremely difficult to set out.

not at all. Despite not knowing the HOW of gravity, we can actually define it very well and very precisely.

and as for gravity being nothing more than 'mass attracts mass' what else do you want or need since that perfectly explains the gravity on earth and how we see its effects.

Once again, you need to provide a SINGLE example of how the gravity explanation does not explain what we observe in our physical environment. ONE.

Come back when you do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2016, 12:48:30 AM

Jane understands a lot of what I'm saying because she's took the time to logically look at the simplicity of it and as straightforward as that may seem, it's the hardest thing anyone can do, because most minds are saturated in a complicated so called scientific model that appears to wipe out any rival.

Jane doesn't adhere to my model. She goes with the global model but has the common sense and the logical mind to look deeply into alternates. Some of you lot should take a leaf out of her book and try to understand it all, even as a personal thought experiment and see where it brings you over time.

It matters not to me what you decide as it's entirely your choice in which way you approach and adhere to a theory/hypothesis - but seeing as your globe model is all mapped out for you with nowhere else to go with it, it seems a pointless exercise to simply keep plugging it like a stuck record, with no physical educational gains.

I'd be delighted if Jane carries on looking deeply into my model, because she is the only person who just about fully grasps what it's about. She's managed this because she's been clever enough to not allow conflict of interest to scupper her thoughts.

I'd like to say thanks to Jane for aiding me in explaining how my model works, even though the physical proof is extremely difficult to set out.

What you dont seem to get is that Jane also thinks your model is stupid and unsupportable. She's just being nicer about it.

Quote from: fliggs on August 17, 2016, 11:48:39 PM

not at all. Despite not knowing the HOW of gravity, we can actually define it very well and very precisely.

That's like saying you know that Criss Angel (magician) levitates due to a force that you're not aware of but you can define it very well and very precisely.

Quote from: fliggs on August 17, 2016, 11:48:39 PM

and as for gravity being nothing more than 'mass attracts mass' what else do you want or need since that perfectly explains the gravity on earth and how we see its effects.

What else do I want?
I'm telling you about denpressure and how atmospheric pressure upon any dense object pushing into it creates a man made weight measurement and you people brush it off in favour of an unknown force that somehow isn't a force when - required not to be so - but then creates a mass attracting mass finale that has no purpose to it in terms of what force of any description can be put together as any kind of model.
It's simply free space that just somehow allows mass to attract mass between it. It's so nonsensical and yet people accept is as something.

What? ....Explain it?

Quote from: fliggs on August 17, 2016, 11:48:39 PM

Once again, you need to provide a SINGLE example of how the gravity explanation does not explain what we observe in our physical environment. ONE.

Come back when you do.

Same thing again. You observe nothing at all to do with gravity. You're told that what you observe is down to gravity and yet it CANNOT be explained as a force or anything, other than to say "it is."

Absolutely crazy as all hell.

Quote from: fliggs on August 18, 2016, 01:01:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 18, 2016, 12:48:30 AM

Jane understands a lot of what I'm saying because she's took the time to logically look at the simplicity of it and as straightforward as that may seem, it's the hardest thing anyone can do, because most minds are saturated in a complicated so called scientific model that appears to wipe out any rival.

Jane doesn't adhere to my model. She goes with the global model but has the common sense and the logical mind to look deeply into alternates. Some of you lot should take a leaf out of her book and try to understand it all, even as a personal thought experiment and see where it brings you over time.

It matters not to me what you decide as it's entirely your choice in which way you approach and adhere to a theory/hypothesis - but seeing as your globe model is all mapped out for you with nowhere else to go with it, it seems a pointless exercise to simply keep plugging it like a stuck record, with no physical educational gains.

I'd be delighted if Jane carries on looking deeply into my model, because she is the only person who just about fully grasps what it's about. She's managed this because she's been clever enough to not allow conflict of interest to scupper her thoughts.

I'd like to say thanks to Jane for aiding me in explaining how my model works, even though the physical proof is extremely difficult to set out.

What you dont seem to get is that Jane also thinks your model is stupid and unsupportable. She's just being nicer about it.

What you don't seem to get is that it matters not what Jane thinks of me or my model. the fact that she's took the time to actually understand it is massive for me.
Jane is what I class as extremely intelligent and not easily drawn into gullibility, nor peer pressure in extremity.
This makes her an ideal person to actually grasp different models that interest her - and make no mistake, my model interests her because nobody would take the time out like she has if it didn't.

You people could learn a lot from Jane.