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

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 04:40:10 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:30:00 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 03:52:12 AM

We can see the sun rotate.



Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Amazing how you can hear the sun while you watch that!

Amazing how every time laps shows the same thing.



Oh wait, that is not amazing, that is evidence.

Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing.

Oh so you can hear the sun in all timelapses of the Sun and you know that for a fact?

Wow!

I never said anything about sound you idiot. You have eyes, don't you? You can see the sun rotate.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:48:45 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 04:40:10 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:30:00 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 03:52:12 AM

We can see the sun rotate.



Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Amazing how you can hear the sun while you watch that!

Amazing how every time laps shows the same thing.



Oh wait, that is not amazing, that is evidence.

Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing.

Oh so you can hear the sun in all timelapses of the Sun and you know that for a fact?

Wow!

I never said anything about sound you idiot. You have eyes, don't you? You can see the sun rotate.

I never said anything about rotation.  What exactly is your problem??

Oops.  I meant move a piston.  A basic pump is just a piston going up and down in a cylinder with some valves.

Ok no problem.

  Some pumps are more solidly built than others and some can pump out more air per second.

Some can compress more atmosphere away from a chamber to allow expansion of atmosphere in greater amounts.

 

  However, all pumps are only working with a very small pressure difference if they are expelling air into atmospheric pressure and there is no particular strength needed to do that.

No they're not. In your mind they're working with a small pressure difference but the reality is the pressure difference is huge.
You don't appreciate it because you're not under that pressure difference.
a clue is the magdeburg hemispheres.
This will tell you that there is no small pressure difference.

The fact you say a strong pump will break the glass STRONGLY suggests there is something you do not understand.

No. I'm 100% certain that you do not understand evacuation of pressure.

 

Strong or weak the pumps are only working against the same small pressure difference between one atmosphere and whatever the pump can create.

Take some time out to think about what you're saying.

    Providing the glass can comfortably handle the small pressure difference it is not going to break because a low pressure difference of only 15 pounds per square inch is suddenly created.

A very small pressure difference would be fine but this is far from it in terms of what we are dealing with.

The best explanation we have for gas behaviour is the kinetic theory of gases which you will have heard of.      The gas particles are in rapid movement unless the temperature is reduced to absolute zero.  Gases move from one part of a container to another by diffusion.

Yep, it's called expansion from compression.

So before particles can be removed from the cylinder they have to have travelled to the cylinder via their own random movement and remain there before the valve closes.

There's no random movement. The movement is by force and by attachment of ALL molecules.
There are no free flowing/floating particles with free space in between just landing wherever. Life cannot work like that.
It's very simply high verses low pressures created by friction/vibration under pressures at varying frequencies.

The ordinary vacuum pump has no ability to suck on the air or cause it to change direction or do anything at all.     The air does its own thing.    The ordinary pump does its thing.

You're correct. Nothing sucks in reality. Nothing pulls in reality. It's all push. It's all resistance.
The pumps job is merely to resist pressure by PUSH and nothing else.
The rest is done by expansion of atmosphere following right behind that pushing pump.

And so if you take a piece of delicate glassware and it is comfortably capable of withstanding a vacuum, which is a small pressure difference between low pressure and one atmosphere, it does not matter what pump you connect it to, none of the pumps have any particular ability to create a force which can damage the glass, because the greatest force they can create is only a small 15 pounds per square inch.

You have a bit to learn, seriously. Allow yourself to learn it and you'll open your eyes and mind to reality.

So, this is a simple diagram (not to scale) of some hydrogen. The color triplets (red, green and blue) are quarks. They are in groups (denoted by a purple or yellow boundary) where they hold together. The purple ones are protons, they have a positive charge +1. The yellow ones are neutrons, they have no charge. In the bottom right corner, I have zoomed in on a proton and a neutron. Inside the proton and the neutron, the quarks switches colors with each other. This keeps them together. But sometimes a quark from the proton and a quark from the neutron does it, and that keeps them together as well.

Lone protons or groups of protons and neutrons are called atomic nuclei. Atomic nuclei has the same charge as the number of protons in them. For simplicity, all atomic nuclei have one proton in them, and therefore the charge +1. The gray dots are electrons. They have the charge -1. Electrical charges always want to equalize (reach a 0 in total), so the electrons are attracted to the atomic nuclei. All the atomic nuclei have the charge +1, so to reach zero each nuclei can take one electron (1-1=0). Now they have formed hydrogen atoms. But atomic nuclei are weird. They always want to have a certain amount of electrons around them to be stable, and having one electron is not stable. These nuclei want to have 2 electrons. So when two hydrogen atoms meet, they both have one electron each. What they do is that they move so close to each other that both atoms can feel as if they have two electrons, and they stay together like that. Now we have formed hydrogen molecules. Now, as you can see in the illustration the electrons of the top hydrogen molecule are both between the atoms (they don't have to be, but where they are is random). And in the bottom hydrogen molecule, the electrons are a bit above the atoms. This means that the bottom electrons can feel a bit of attraction towards the top hydrogen molecule. This is one way that molecules keep together (although this is the weakest one, since the top electrons can move back and repel the electrons of the bottom molecule)

Disclaimer: This is not everything. Once again, there's a lot more math and particles that play a role in this. This is just mostly everything that's needed to know why we have objects like trees and dirt etc.

I haven't got round to drawing and explaining mine just yet.
I've looked at yours and I still don't see how your model can work. I see orbiting atoms. I mean, seriously?
Why would atoms just orbit around a molecule/s?
What's causing all this to happen. I need a reason for it to happen.;

I've told you that all my matter is connected. There are no random particles in free space. Mine works by simple expansion and contraction by pressures under frequency of vibrations/friction.

I haven't got round to drawing and explaining mine just yet.
I've looked at yours and I still don't see how your model can work. I see orbiting atoms. I mean, seriously?

I think you read this:

The gray dots are electrons. They have the charge -1. Electrical charges always want to equalize (reach a 0 in total), so the electrons are attracted to the atomic nuclei.

Wrong. I clearly state that the grey dots orbiting the atomic nuclei are electrons.

Why would atoms just orbit around a molecule/s?
What's causing all this to happen. I need a reason for it to happen.;

Why do expanding and contracting pieces of matter swallow each other when they are pushed against each other? For now, we don't need to know the why. So far, I'm just interested in how your model works, not why. If you don't know how something works, then how could you possibly understand why it does? Once we both understand how each other's model works, we can begin explaining the whys as far as we both can. If you want to I can also go through my model more in piece by piece, so I can explain it better.

I've told you that all my matter is connected. There are no random particles in free space. Mine works by simple expansion and contraction by pressures under frequency of vibrations/friction.

You didn't clearly state that all matter is connected, but thanks for explaining that. If all matter is connected, then how can you differentiate one piece of matter from another? I assume that for one piece of matter to swallow another piece, there must be some way to tell exactly what a piece is?

why would electrons orbit

Why would the sun circle above the flat earth? What propels it? What keeps it up?

Why would the flat earth accelerate upwards? What accelerates it? Why?

Why would the flat earth not flip because of the difference in weight distribution while it is accelerating upwards?

I could list a hundred more of these. You are never going to answer them.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

Oops.  I meant move a piston.  A basic pump is just a piston going up and down in a cylinder with some valves.

Ok no problem.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 01:39:46 AM

  Some pumps are more solidly built than others and some can pump out more air per second.

Some can compress more atmosphere away from a chamber to allow expansion of atmosphere in greater amounts.

 

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

  However, all pumps are only working with a very small pressure difference if they are expelling air into atmospheric pressure and there is no particular strength needed to do that.

No they're not. In your mind they're working with a small pressure difference but the reality is the pressure difference is huge.
You don't appreciate it because you're not under that pressure difference.
a clue is the magdeburg hemispheres.
This will tell you that there is no small pressure difference.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

The fact you say a strong pump will break the glass STRONGLY suggests there is something you do not understand.

No. I'm 100% certain that you do not understand evacuation of pressure.

 

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

Strong or weak the pumps are only working against the same small pressure difference between one atmosphere and whatever the pump can create.

Take some time out to think about what you're saying.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

    Providing the glass can comfortably handle the small pressure difference it is not going to break because a low pressure difference of only 15 pounds per square inch is suddenly created.

A very small pressure difference would be fine but this is far from it in terms of what we are dealing with.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 01:39:46 AM

The best explanation we have for gas behaviour is the kinetic theory of gases which you will have heard of.      The gas particles are in rapid movement unless the temperature is reduced to absolute zero.  Gases move from one part of a container to another by diffusion.

Yep, it's called expansion from compression.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

So before particles can be removed from the cylinder they have to have travelled to the cylinder via their own random movement and remain there before the valve closes.

There's no random movement. The movement is by force and by attachment of ALL molecules.
There are no free flowing/floating particles with free space in between just landing wherever. Life cannot work like that.
It's very simply high verses low pressures created by friction/vibration under pressures at varying frequencies.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

The ordinary vacuum pump has no ability to suck on the air or cause it to change direction or do anything at all.     The air does its own thing.    The ordinary pump does its thing.

You're correct. Nothing sucks in reality. Nothing pulls in reality. It's all push. It's all resistance.
The pumps job is merely to resist pressure by PUSH and nothing else.
The rest is done by expansion of atmosphere following right behind that pushing pump.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

And so if you take a piece of delicate glassware and it is comfortably capable of withstanding a vacuum, which is a small pressure difference between low pressure and one atmosphere, it does not matter what pump you connect it to, none of the pumps have any particular ability to create a force which can damage the glass, because the greatest force they can create is only a small 15 pounds per square inch.

You have a bit to learn, seriously. Allow yourself to learn it and you'll open your eyes and mind to reality.

Re: The magdeberg experiment

1. A tiny pump can create a vacuum which even an elephant cannot work against because we are talking about the small pressure difference of 15 pounds per square inch over a large area.   

2.  If there are no leaks the largest most powerful pump in the world can create no more force than the smallest pump in the world providing both can create the same small pressure difference and sufficient time is allowed for the small pump to reach the lowest pressure.

3. If delicate glassware is rated for a vacuum it cannot be destroyed by connecting it to the largest vacuum pump in the world, unless for example it is abusively suddenly evacuated and instantly refilled and that cycle is repeated continually and the glassware is not rated for that.

>>a clue is the magdeburg hemispheres.
>>This will tell you that there is no small pressure difference.

The pressure difference per square inch is small.  The total force is large.    The pressure difference is the small difference in pressure per square inch between inside and out.   The only thing a vacuum pump experiment needs to consider is the ability of the pump to create a small pressure difference and the time needed to lower the pressure.

If there are no leaks a tiny pump can evacuate a huge chamber like the one NASA has with no problems whatsoever provided it is allowed to run for a sufficient amount of time.  The pressure difference between inside and out is small.  Designing a building to withstand that is simple if sufficient money is spent on the structure and we can easily go thru a simple design to show how it can be done using very basic materials.

>>There's no random movement. The movement is by force and by attachment of ALL molecules.
>>There are no free flowing/floating particles with free space in between just landing wherever. Life cannot work like that.
>>It's very simply high verses low pressures created by friction/vibration under pressures at varying frequencies.

I prefer to work with what an ordinary person can demonstrate to another person using simple methods like for example my blind bearing example.    If you believe you can reject the science of the last 3 hundred years there is not much I can do about it unless suitable experiments can be considered.      Firstly, whatever it is you are talking about has to be understood by me and at the moment I have no idea what you are saying there.

Anyway, for the time being I am supposing we can now agree on the following:

 

  all pumps are only working with a very small pressure difference if they are expelling air into atmospheric pressure and there is no particular strength needed to do that.

No they're not. In your mind they're working with a small pressure difference but the reality is the pressure difference is huge.
You don't appreciate it because you're not under that pressure difference.
a clue is the magdeburg hemispheres.
This will tell you that there is no small pressure difference.

1.  The pressure difference the pump experiences is very small
2.  Whatever large forces the container experiences are a different consideration to the small forces the pump experiences
3.  The pressure difference in the magdeburg experiment between the inside and outside of the hemisphere is a small one at only one atmosphere, the hemispheres are however sufficiently large that a large amount of force can be created to keep them together, as far as the pump is considered it only experiences a small force to create those large forces. 
4. No matter what size the chamber is, the pump will only work at the same rate for all chambers immediately prior to the lowest pressure being reached and also when it is reached.  Neither the pump motor revolutions or the air pressure in the tube leading to the pump can by themselves be used to detect chamber size.

The shape of the energy that we see as the sun is an arc from the graphite electrode.
This arc is reflected off the dome and back to us.
The graphite is moving up and down like a ding dong doorbell would, due to on off energy, or basically a charge en reduce energy, or to be a bit more plain, a capacitor like energy.

This creates a breathing dome, or what would be thought of as that. It  lowers and heightens the pressure due to this breathing dome. It's the reason we have tides.

Now the key to how the sun moves around us is a trick of the eye. It's like a cinema motion picture.
Basically it's spinning around us so fast as a reflection that we see it as slow motion. Just like we would do if we were watching the effects of a fast moving reel of film portrayed to the cinema screen.

Of course, this is the utter basics and may or may not sink in. It's easy for it to be ridiculed but those that do will understand nothing. I have faith in you understanding most of what I say, regardless of whether any of it makes a reality of sense.

Thank you.
I'll admit my picture of the Sun isn't too perfect, but that's as much down to my lack of knowledge about arc lamps as anything.
So, at an instant in time, this would be shining up to one specific point on the dome, and reflecting down?

The spinning I think I understand. Presumably it's related to how, for example, certain recordings of helicopters can show the rotors stationary, or even moving slowly in reverse, depending on the frame rate of the camera?
On the up-and-down motion, would I be right in concluding that that (combined with the trick-of-the-eye responsible for the Sun's seeming slow progression) is responsible for seasons, making the Sun appear to reflect down from different parts of the dome?

My main issue at this stage might just be from assuming the science I'm used to, but how does heat work? The trick-of-the-eye responsible for the Sun's slower progression I can understand, but the principle wouldn't seem to apply to heat, only to light, so I'm not sure why it would get cooler at night. Surely there would be just as much heat being emitted over all parts of the Earth, regardless of where the Sun appears to be? After all, if my understanding's correct, the Sun seeming to be in one location is human perception more than anything. The fast-reel type illusion seems to only apply to light.

You decide what you want to decide from this point on.
Here's a tip for you. Try to do this for yourself. Don't do it whilst smirking and internet nudging the other like-minded game players.

It's a simple question. If there is some gigantic heat and light source that comes from the center of the earth and reflects upon a dome high in the atmosphere, it follows that we should be able to see this light source, am I right? I'm not smirking. I am genuinely curious about how the sun works in your model. If for some reason we cannot see this light source from where it originates, why not?

Regarding Brian Cox. Let's say he is a fraud, intent upon spreading misinformation to the masses.

Now look at any of the hundreds of other videos of people dropping objects inside of evacuation chambers, showing that they drop at the same rate. What is happening in these videos? Are all these videos elaborate con jobs as well?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 01:36:19 AM

You decide what you want to decide from this point on.
Here's a tip for you. Try to do this for yourself. Don't do it whilst smirking and internet nudging the other like-minded game players.

It's a simple question. If there is some gigantic heat and light source that comes from the center of the earth and reflects upon a dome high in the atmosphere, it follows that we should be able to see this light source, am I right? I'm not smirking. I am genuinely curious about how the sun works in your model. If for some reason we cannot see this light source from where it originates, why not?

Regarding Brian Cox. Let's say he is a fraud, intent upon spreading misinformation to the masses.

Now look at any of the hundreds of other videos of people dropping objects inside of evacuation chambers, showing that they drop at the same rate. What is happening in these videos? Are all these videos elaborate con jobs as well?

can we please clarify why exactly Brian cox is a fraudulent paid actor in connection with the NASA large vacuum chamber?   

1. Is this because it is not possible to create a large vacuum because of something to do with vacuum pumps?

or

2. Has it got something to do with the impossibility of engineering such a large structure no matter how much money is available to do it?

or

3 some combination of 1 and 2 or some other reason.   What exactly is the reason?


As far as the engineering goes we are talking about 10 tons per square meter so it would just be engineering and money to build a large structure with the main problem being how to seal the huge doors they are using there.

As far as a pump goes in a leak proof container even a tiny pump could be used providing that tiny pump was able to create any small amount of the kind of vacuum they need there.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 27, 2016, 11:04:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 01:36:19 AM

You decide what you want to decide from this point on.
Here's a tip for you. Try to do this for yourself. Don't do it whilst smirking and internet nudging the other like-minded game players.

It's a simple question. If there is some gigantic heat and light source that comes from the center of the earth and reflects upon a dome high in the atmosphere, it follows that we should be able to see this light source, am I right? I'm not smirking. I am genuinely curious about how the sun works in your model. If for some reason we cannot see this light source from where it originates, why not?

Regarding Brian Cox. Let's say he is a fraud, intent upon spreading misinformation to the masses.

Now look at any of the hundreds of other videos of people dropping objects inside of evacuation chambers, showing that they drop at the same rate. What is happening in these videos? Are all these videos elaborate con jobs as well?

can we please clarify why exactly Brian cox is a fraudulent paid actor in connection with the NASA large vacuum chamber?   

1. Is this because it is not possible to create a large vacuum because of something to do with vacuum pumps?

or

2. Has it got something to do with the impossibility of engineering such a large structure no matter how much money is available to do it?

or

3 some combination of 1 and 2 or some other reason.   What exactly is the reason?


As far as the engineering goes we are talking about 10 tons per square meter so it would just be engineering and money to build a large structure with the main problem being how to seal the huge doors they are using there.

As far as a pump goes in a leak proof container even a tiny pump could be used providing that tiny pump was able to create any small amount of the kind of vacuum they need there.

Hi.
I'm relatively new to this forum and everytime I discover something new here, what I don't see on other forums. In this above citation I see that the guy "Aliveandkicking" clearly answers for a different question, not cited here. What is going on?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 12:27:28 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 27, 2016, 11:04:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 01:36:19 AM

You decide what you want to decide from this point on.
Here's a tip for you. Try to do this for yourself. Don't do it whilst smirking and internet nudging the other like-minded game players.

It's a simple question. If there is some gigantic heat and light source that comes from the center of the earth and reflects upon a dome high in the atmosphere, it follows that we should be able to see this light source, am I right? I'm not smirking. I am genuinely curious about how the sun works in your model. If for some reason we cannot see this light source from where it originates, why not?

Regarding Brian Cox. Let's say he is a fraud, intent upon spreading misinformation to the masses.

Now look at any of the hundreds of other videos of people dropping objects inside of evacuation chambers, showing that they drop at the same rate. What is happening in these videos? Are all these videos elaborate con jobs as well?

can we please clarify why exactly Brian cox is a fraudulent paid actor in connection with the NASA large vacuum chamber?   

1. Is this because it is not possible to create a large vacuum because of something to do with vacuum pumps?

or

2. Has it got something to do with the impossibility of engineering such a large structure no matter how much money is available to do it?

or

3 some combination of 1 and 2 or some other reason.   What exactly is the reason?


As far as the engineering goes we are talking about 10 tons per square meter so it would just be engineering and money to build a large structure with the main problem being how to seal the huge doors they are using there.

As far as a pump goes in a leak proof container even a tiny pump could be used providing that tiny pump was able to create any small amount of the kind of vacuum they need there.

Hi.
I'm relatively new to this forum and everytime I discover something new here, what I don't see on other forums. In this above citation I see that the guy "Aliveandkicking" clearly answers for a different question, not cited here. What is going on?

The connection is brian cox who was filmed touring the worlds largest vacuum chamber where a recording was made of a feather and ball dropping

Is that sufficient?

 I just follow thread now but I am not quite clear about one thing. What are these jawbreaker molecules made of? And how can they come together and form gases, liquids and solid matter? I just throw this thought up to air and I really don't want anyone to follow it and start discussion.

The connection is brian cox who was filmed touring the worlds largest vacuum chamber where a recording was made of a feather and ball dropping

Is that sufficient?

Oh, I see it now. But... there were also other questions. You have no answers for them?

I just follow thread now but I am not quite clear about one thing. What are these jawbreaker molecules made of? And how can they come together and form gases, liquids and solid matter? I just throw this thought up to air and I really don't want anyone to follow it and start discussion.

Under Scepti's model, the most basic state of matter is essentially a hollow ball (or, more rigorously, a hollow ball with one hole in). It's not solid: it expands when it has the room to and the heat energy to encourage expansion, and contracts when put under pressure. In any vessel, no matter the shape, the molecules expand to fill every speck inside it, even the corners, to prevent any vacuum forming.
Jawbreakers are composed of these molecules. If you squeeze them together in a sufficiently high-pressure environment, they'll slowly begin to slide within one another (when one is pressed against the hole of another, it'll be forced inside if it's being squeezed tightly enough). That creates the jawbreakers, and a different number of layers gives a different element.

Each molecule vibrates: everything does, that's just what heat is. The properties of the various elements (such as state), and subsequent reactions, stems from their frequencies; each element would vibrate the same way as another example of that element, but differently to one with a layer unpeeled, or a layer added. I don't know the intricacies, but I'm less interested in such technical details anyway.

Like you said, you don't want to start a discussion, that's fine, just doing a quick recount for those that haven't been in this thread for as long. This is how his model more or less goes.

Under Scepti's model, the most basic state of matter is essentially a hollow ball (or, more rigorously, a hollow ball with one hole in).

How can molecules be hollow? I thought there was no empty space whatsoever? That's the point of these soap bubbles, they explain how empty space does not exist. That's why the jawbreaker analogy exists. The particles are layered, not hollow.

My question is, where do these extra layers go when the jawbreaker's exterior layer dissolves?

How can molecules hollow? I thought there was no empty space whatsoever? That's the point of these soap bubbles, they explain how empty space does not exist. That's why the jawbreaker analogy exists. The particles are layered, not hollow.

My question is, where do these extra layers go when the jawbreaker's exterior layer dissolves?

The details of what's inside the balls is interesting concept, but i'm less concerned with technicalities, but this is probably the easiest way to think about them.
The outer layer doesn't dissolve. When a molecule has enough energy and is low enough pressure, the jawbreaker inside the outer layer has the room and energy to expand out of the hole, meaning the outer layer will seem to unpeel. It'd be left alone as a simpler molecule.
However, it's likely also the case that similar will happen for other molecules all around: maybe even the jawbreaker that outer layer has just come from, so multiple shells will be shed, and there could be enough pressure to make those combine into another.
Remember, as well, that the pressure exerted would depend on the molecules all around.
That's my understanding, at least.

So we have all these jawbreakers peeling and unpeeling because of relative pressure?

How does the model explain the different elements?

Am I seriously the only one who is genuinely curious? I would personally like to know more about how the sun works in the denpressure model. Scepti claims it is like a movie projector, but when I go to the movies I can always tell where the image originates. If I look back, I can see where the light is coming from. Scepti seems to suggest the light comes from the center of the earth, but I have no idea how the light makes its way through the earth's crust to make its way to the upper atmosphere, to then be reflected back upon us.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 27, 2016, 06:26:50 PM

How can molecules hollow? I thought there was no empty space whatsoever? That's the point of these soap bubbles, they explain how empty space does not exist. That's why the jawbreaker analogy exists. The particles are layered, not hollow.

My question is, where do these extra layers go when the jawbreaker's exterior layer dissolves?

The details of what's inside the balls is interesting concept, but i'm less concerned with technicalities, but this is probably the easiest way to think about them.
The outer layer doesn't dissolve. When a molecule has enough energy and is low enough pressure, the jawbreaker inside the outer layer has the room and energy to expand out of the hole, meaning the outer layer will seem to unpeel. It'd be left alone as a simpler molecule.
However, it's likely also the case that similar will happen for other molecules all around: maybe even the jawbreaker that outer layer has just come from, so multiple shells will be shed, and there could be enough pressure to make those combine into another.
Remember, as well, that the pressure exerted would depend on the molecules all around.
That's my understanding, at least.

I wonder if scepti's multilayer jawbreaker model might be his interpretation of the multiple layers of an atom's electron orbitals and the peeling off of layers is the sharing of electrons in atomic bonding.

Quote from: Jane on August 27, 2016, 06:32:30 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 27, 2016, 06:26:50 PM

How can molecules hollow? I thought there was no empty space whatsoever? That's the point of these soap bubbles, they explain how empty space does not exist. That's why the jawbreaker analogy exists. The particles are layered, not hollow.

My question is, where do these extra layers go when the jawbreaker's exterior layer dissolves?

The details of what's inside the balls is interesting concept, but i'm less concerned with technicalities, but this is probably the easiest way to think about them.
The outer layer doesn't dissolve. When a molecule has enough energy and is low enough pressure, the jawbreaker inside the outer layer has the room and energy to expand out of the hole, meaning the outer layer will seem to unpeel. It'd be left alone as a simpler molecule.
However, it's likely also the case that similar will happen for other molecules all around: maybe even the jawbreaker that outer layer has just come from, so multiple shells will be shed, and there could be enough pressure to make those combine into another.
Remember, as well, that the pressure exerted would depend on the molecules all around.
That's my understanding, at least.

I wonder if scepti's multilayer jawbreaker model might be his interpretation of the multiple layers of an atom's electron orbitals and the peeling off of layers is the sharing of electrons in atomic bonding.

They do exhibit many similar properties.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 12:59:08 PM

The connection is brian cox who was filmed touring the worlds largest vacuum chamber where a recording was made of a feather and ball dropping

Is that sufficient?

Oh, I see it now. But... there were also other questions. You have no answers for them?

Answers for what exactly?  I already showed earlier that a video claiming to show objects falling at the same rate showed an apple falling faster in air than feathers falling in what was claimed to be a vacuum.



And as far as I could tell in the very poor quality video provided by myth busters, the myth busters demo of the same thing with a hammer appeared to show the hammer falling faster than the feathers.   

Other than that, I dont have anything to say about the videos produced to show how objects fall in a 'vacuum' at the same rate

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 27, 2016, 06:26:50 PM

How can molecules hollow? I thought there was no empty space whatsoever? That's the point of these soap bubbles, they explain how empty space does not exist. That's why the jawbreaker analogy exists. The particles are layered, not hollow.

My question is, where do these extra layers go when the jawbreaker's exterior layer dissolves?

The details of what's inside the balls is interesting concept, but i'm less concerned with technicalities, but this is probably the easiest way to think about them.
The outer layer doesn't dissolve. When a molecule has enough energy and is low enough pressure, the jawbreaker inside the outer layer has the room and energy to expand out of the hole, meaning the outer layer will seem to unpeel. It'd be left alone as a simpler molecule.
However, it's likely also the case that similar will happen for other molecules all around: maybe even the jawbreaker that outer layer has just come from, so multiple shells will be shed, and there could be enough pressure to make those combine into another.
Remember, as well, that the pressure exerted would depend on the molecules all around.
That's my understanding, at least.

So what property of this arrangement causes problems when we connect a container of air to a pump and we continually remove an amount of air from the container via the pump?   What is the basis for Sceptimatics theory brian cox is an actor?

Sceptimatic told me all of the molecules are connected together and I am supposing he is saying they can never be separated so even after passing thru the pump the matter outside the pump is still connected physically to the matter in the  pump?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

So before particles can be removed from the cylinder they have to have travelled to the cylinder via their own random movement and remain there before the valve closes.

There's no random movement. The movement is by force and by attachment of ALL molecules.
There are no free flowing/floating particles with free space in between just landing wherever. Life cannot work like that.
It's very simply high verses low pressures created by friction/vibration under pressures at varying frequencies.

Do we know the basis for the statement 'life cannot work like thatī?    The statement appears to be the key reason random movement is being rejected.  Has this got something to do with intelligent design, so the particles cannot be just randomly moving without purpose?

If we remove the content which is objecting to random movement we are left with:

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

So before particles can be removed from the cylinder they have to have travelled to the cylinder via their own random movement and remain there before the valve closes.

The movement is by force and by attachment of ALL molecules.
It's very simply high verses low pressures created by friction/vibration under pressures at varying frequencies.

What does that text mean please?

Do you have any idea how this is all being put together to create the idea brian cox is an actor?

Quote from: Globetrotter on August 27, 2016, 05:51:48 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 12:59:08 PM

The connection is brian cox who was filmed touring the worlds largest vacuum chamber where a recording was made of a feather and ball dropping

Is that sufficient?

Oh, I see it now. But... there were also other questions. You have no answers for them?

Answers for what exactly?  I already showed earlier that a video claiming to show objects falling at the same rate showed an apple falling faster in air than feathers falling in what was claimed to be a vacuum.



And as far as I could tell in the very poor quality video provided by myth busters, the myth busters demo of the same thing with a hammer appeared to show the hammer falling faster than the feathers.   

Other than that, I dont have anything to say about the videos produced to show how objects fall in a 'vacuum' at the same rate

If you watch that video carefully it is flawed because the Apple is released earlier than the feather. That is why it appears to be falling faster.

Under Scepti's model, the most basic state of matter is essentially a hollow ball (or, more rigorously, a hollow ball with one hole in). It's not solid: it expands when it has the room to and the heat energy to encourage expansion, and contracts when put under pressure. In any vessel, no matter the shape, the molecules expand to fill every speck inside it, even the corners, to prevent any vacuum forming.

Even the best lab in the world cannot create a perfect vacuum so 'prevent any vacuum forming' is not a very clear statement of something that is different to what we already experience.  HOWEVER,  he is using this undisputed idea to create a huge meaning where he is claiming the tiny presence of matter can make it impossible to show objects falling at what appears to be the same rate in the nasa vacuum chamber

Is he is saying a state where a vacuum is almost formed is also impossible?   He seems happy with the idea lower pressure can be created and equally happy higher pressure can be created.

How does an air pump create lower pressure on one side of the pump and higher pressure on the other side of the pump?    Is any matter passing thru the pump?

If matter passes thru the pump then there is less matter on the low pressure side.     

What causes the reduction of pressure on the low pressure side to finally cease?

When a high quality 'vacuum pump' is connected to a container of air what is contained inside the container once the 'vacuum' pump can no longer lower the pressure in the container?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 09:22:14 PM

Quote from: Globetrotter on August 27, 2016, 05:51:48 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 12:59:08 PM

The connection is brian cox who was filmed touring the worlds largest vacuum chamber where a recording was made of a feather and ball dropping

Is that sufficient?

Oh, I see it now. But... there were also other questions. You have no answers for them?

Answers for what exactly?  I already showed earlier that a video claiming to show objects falling at the same rate showed an apple falling faster in air than feathers falling in what was claimed to be a vacuum.



And as far as I could tell in the very poor quality video provided by myth busters, the myth busters demo of the same thing with a hammer appeared to show the hammer falling faster than the feathers.   

Other than that, I dont have anything to say about the videos produced to show how objects fall in a 'vacuum' at the same rate

If you watch that video carefully it is flawed because the Apple is released earlier than the feather. That is why it appears to be falling faster.

No.  If you watch the slow motion of him releasing the objects it is quite clear the feather is released BEFORE the apple and anyway it is clear the apple is accelerating faster than the feather.  The apple is in air.  It should be slower.

How do you imagine an ordinary person can create a super duper high quality 'vacuum' when it takes huge effort in the best laboratories in the world to be able to attempt it and yet they still cannot quite get there?

Here his video of 400 frames a second is slowed down by me by 8 times.

Why would the sun circle above the flat earth? What propels it? What keeps it up?

Noting keeps it up. It's a reflection.

Why would the flat earth accelerate upwards? What accelerates it? Why?

It doesn't in my model. You'll have to ask the flat Earth theorists who go with the UA model. That's not my model.

Why would the flat earth not flip because of the difference in weight distribution while it is accelerating upwards?

As above.

I could list a hundred more of these. You are never going to answer them.

I can answer anything. Whether it's what you want to see, is another thing.

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 08:46:48 AM

Why would the sun circle above the flat earth? What propels it? What keeps it up?

Noting keeps it up. It's a reflection.

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 08:46:48 AM

Why would the flat earth accelerate upwards? What accelerates it? Why?

It doesn't in my model. You'll have to ask the flat Earth theorists who go with the UA model. That's not my model.

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 08:46:48 AM

Why would the flat earth not flip because of the difference in weight distribution while it is accelerating upwards?

As above.

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 08:46:48 AM

I could list a hundred more of these. You are never going to answer them.

I can answer anything. Whether it's what you want to see, is another thing.

Reflection from where?  You keep saying 'the centre of the earth' but unless there is a hole in the earth no one is aware of... that is nonsense.

So tell us again where the sun is?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 27, 2016, 08:23:15 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

Oops.  I meant move a piston.  A basic pump is just a piston going up and down in a cylinder with some valves.

Ok no problem.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 01:39:46 AM

  Some pumps are more solidly built than others and some can pump out more air per second.

Some can compress more atmosphere away from a chamber to allow expansion of atmosphere in greater amounts.

 

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

  However, all pumps are only working with a very small pressure difference if they are expelling air into atmospheric pressure and there is no particular strength needed to do that.

No they're not. In your mind they're working with a small pressure difference but the reality is the pressure difference is huge.
You don't appreciate it because you're not under that pressure difference.
a clue is the magdeburg hemispheres.
This will tell you that there is no small pressure difference.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

The fact you say a strong pump will break the glass STRONGLY suggests there is something you do not understand.

No. I'm 100% certain that you do not understand evacuation of pressure.

 

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

Strong or weak the pumps are only working against the same small pressure difference between one atmosphere and whatever the pump can create.

Take some time out to think about what you're saying.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

    Providing the glass can comfortably handle the small pressure difference it is not going to break because a low pressure difference of only 15 pounds per square inch is suddenly created.

A very small pressure difference would be fine but this is far from it in terms of what we are dealing with.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 01:39:46 AM

The best explanation we have for gas behaviour is the kinetic theory of gases which you will have heard of.      The gas particles are in rapid movement unless the temperature is reduced to absolute zero.  Gases move from one part of a container to another by diffusion.

Yep, it's called expansion from compression.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

So before particles can be removed from the cylinder they have to have travelled to the cylinder via their own random movement and remain there before the valve closes.

There's no random movement. The movement is by force and by attachment of ALL molecules.
There are no free flowing/floating particles with free space in between just landing wherever. Life cannot work like that.
It's very simply high verses low pressures created by friction/vibration under pressures at varying frequencies.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

The ordinary vacuum pump has no ability to suck on the air or cause it to change direction or do anything at all.     The air does its own thing.    The ordinary pump does its thing.

You're correct. Nothing sucks in reality. Nothing pulls in reality. It's all push. It's all resistance.
The pumps job is merely to resist pressure by PUSH and nothing else.
The rest is done by expansion of atmosphere following right behind that pushing pump.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

And so if you take a piece of delicate glassware and it is comfortably capable of withstanding a vacuum, which is a small pressure difference between low pressure and one atmosphere, it does not matter what pump you connect it to, none of the pumps have any particular ability to create a force which can damage the glass, because the greatest force they can create is only a small 15 pounds per square inch.

You have a bit to learn, seriously. Allow yourself to learn it and you'll open your eyes and mind to reality.

Re: The magdeberg experiment

1. A tiny pump can create a vacuum which even an elephant cannot work against because we are talking about the small pressure difference of 15 pounds per square inch over a large area.   

2.  If there are no leaks the largest most powerful pump in the world can create no more force than the smallest pump in the world providing both can create the same small pressure difference and sufficient time is allowed for the small pump to reach the lowest pressure.

3. If delicate glassware is rated for a vacuum it cannot be destroyed by connecting it to the largest vacuum pump in the world, unless for example it is abusively suddenly evacuated and instantly refilled and that cycle is repeated continually and the glassware is not rated for that.

>>a clue is the magdeburg hemispheres.
>>This will tell you that there is no small pressure difference.

The pressure difference per square inch is small.  The total force is large.    The pressure difference is the small difference in pressure per square inch between inside and out.   The only thing a vacuum pump experiment needs to consider is the ability of the pump to create a small pressure difference and the time needed to lower the pressure.

If there are no leaks a tiny pump can evacuate a huge chamber like the one NASA has with no problems whatsoever provided it is allowed to run for a sufficient amount of time.  The pressure difference between inside and out is small.  Designing a building to withstand that is simple if sufficient money is spent on the structure and we can easily go thru a simple design to show how it can be done using very basic materials.

>>There's no random movement. The movement is by force and by attachment of ALL molecules.
>>There are no free flowing/floating particles with free space in between just landing wherever. Life cannot work like that.
>>It's very simply high verses low pressures created by friction/vibration under pressures at varying frequencies.

I prefer to work with what an ordinary person can demonstrate to another person using simple methods like for example my blind bearing example.    If you believe you can reject the science of the last 3 hundred years there is not much I can do about it unless suitable experiments can be considered.      Firstly, whatever it is you are talking about has to be understood by me and at the moment I have no idea what you are saying there.

Anyway, for the time being I am supposing we can now agree on the following:

 

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 27, 2016, 04:26:14 AM

  all pumps are only working with a very small pressure difference if they are expelling air into atmospheric pressure and there is no particular strength needed to do that.

No they're not. In your mind they're working with a small pressure difference but the reality is the pressure difference is huge.
You don't appreciate it because you're not under that pressure difference.
a clue is the magdeburg hemispheres.
This will tell you that there is no small pressure difference.

1.  The pressure difference the pump experiences is very small
2.  Whatever large forces the container experiences are a different consideration to the small forces the pump experiences
3.  The pressure difference in the magdeburg experiment between the inside and outside of the hemisphere is a small one at only one atmosphere, the hemispheres are however sufficiently large that a large amount of force can be created to keep them together, as far as the pump is considered it only experiences a small force to create those large forces. 
4. No matter what size the chamber is, the pump will only work at the same rate for all chambers immediately prior to the lowest pressure being reached and also when it is reached.  Neither the pump motor revolutions or the air pressure in the tube leading to the pump can by themselves be used to detect chamber size.

The larger the container being evacuated, the more pressure upon that container and the stronger the force of the pump needed to stop that evacuated pressure from being pushed back inside the chamber.

What is the sun reflecting?
@scepti: wrong.