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

Quote from: jroa on August 29, 2016, 02:57:36 AM

I wish both flat Earthers and round Earthers would stop using feminine pronouns in order to attempt to degrade each other.  We all know that there are no women on the internet.  Case closed.

Stay on topic. Innertia. Den pressure. Your preconceptions ('using feminine pronouns are a put-down') are not important.

Just saying that I don't use "she" in order to degrade my opponent.  You have free speech and all, but degrade women, please. 

If you start a heavy flywheel spinning the remove the drive. It keeps spinning for a long time.

Inertia is what keeps it spinning even though there is some friction (and drag) slowing it down.

I am not sure you can say that is a correct answer.  We humans do not really know why it keeps spinning or why we fly thru the air when a bus stops suddenly.

Inertia describes what we see and experience but we cannot say it happens because of inertia.       Newton said it was an innate property of matter but that kind of idea has I think been revised.

Quote from: Omega on August 29, 2016, 03:04:17 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 29, 2016, 02:57:36 AM

I wish both flat Earthers and round Earthers would stop using feminine pronouns in order to attempt to degrade each other.  We all know that there are no women on the internet.  Case closed.

Stay on topic. Innertia. Den pressure. Your preconceptions ('using feminine pronouns are a put-down') are not important.

Just saying that I don't use "she" in order to degrade my opponent.  You have free speech and all, but degrade women, please.

Unless sceptimatic specifies he is  male, using she is fine.   

I wish both flat Earthers and round Earthers would stop using feminine pronouns in order to attempt to degrade each other.  We all know that there are no women on the internet.  Case closed.

Who or what are you talking to or about?  I don't know whether to feel guilty or not! 

  You have free speech and all, but degrade women, please.

I'd rather not. I'd rather see women as equals and treat them accordingly.

The slosh effect will only kick in once you decelerate.

Haha.  Just too much.

See how you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into thinking that is going to happen?

Deny it all you want but you are just as mind programmed as the rest of us.

In reality nobody can drive in a perfect circle so the sloshing will be happening continually

Quote from: rabinoz on August 29, 2016, 02:16:05 AM

If you start a heavy flywheel spinning the remove the drive. It keeps spinning for a long time.

Inertia is what keeps it spinning even though there is some friction (and drag) slowing it down.

I am not sure you can say that is a correct answer.  We humans do not really know why it keeps spinning or why we fly thru the air when a bus stops suddenly.

Inertia describes what we see and experience but we cannot say it happens because of inertia.       Newton said it was an innate property of matter but that kind of idea has I think been revised.

We see that when you hit the breaks, you are still pulled forward. That is called inertia.

That is called inertia: the behavior of matter as described by Newton's first law:

An object stays in motion (or at rest) until a force is applied to it.

That is what inertia means: the fact that objects move until you use force to stop them, and don't move until you apply force to move them.

It's like saying something is 'red'. 'red' means an object looks 'red'. It is 'red'. We could use another word for the color, but 'red' is the word we describe for the property of 'being red'.

Inertia is the word we use to describe the property of 'object stays in motion (or rest) unless a force is applied to it'.

Therefor inertia exists because that property exists.

HOW IS THIS EVEN IN DISPUTE?

We all know that there are no women on the internet.  Case closed.

I can confirm this.

Quote from: jroa on August 29, 2016, 02:57:36 AM

We all know that there are no women on the internet.  Case closed.

I can confirm this.

No, no, no! Jroa always knows better! How could you doubt it? Mind you could have told him otherwise too, but some prefer to remain "genderless" online!

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 29, 2016, 03:24:14 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 29, 2016, 02:16:05 AM

If you start a heavy flywheel spinning the remove the drive. It keeps spinning for a long time.

Inertia is what keeps it spinning even though there is some friction (and drag) slowing it down.

I am not sure you can say that is a correct answer.  We humans do not really know why it keeps spinning or why we fly thru the air when a bus stops suddenly.

Inertia describes what we see and experience but we cannot say it happens because of inertia.       Newton said it was an innate property of matter but that kind of idea has I think been revised.

We see that when you hit the breaks, you are still pulled forward. That is called inertia.

That is called inertia: the behavior of matter as described by Newton's first law:

An object stays in motion (or at rest) until a force is applied to it.

That is what inertia means: the fact that objects move until you use force to stop them, and don't move until you apply force to move them.

It's like saying something is 'red'. 'red' means an object looks 'red'. It is 'red'. We could use another word for the color, but 'red' is the word we describe for the property of 'being red'.

Inertia is the word we use to describe the property of 'object stays in motion (or rest) unless a force is applied to it'.

Therefor inertia exists because that property exists.

HOW IS THIS EVEN IN DISPUTE?

When you are at school if somebody asks why you need to wear a seat belt it is sufficient to be told it is because of a law of motion called inertia.

At some point however you might ask yourself what is inertia?    Newton thought it was an "innate resistive force".     We are still left with the questions what is it? and what causes it?

From wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Newton's original ideas of "innate resistive force" were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can know, the term "inertia" has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism. Thus, ultimately, "inertia" in modern classical physics has come to be a name for the same phenomenon described by Newton's First Law of Motion, and the two concepts are now considered to be equivalent.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 29, 2016, 02:16:05 AM

If you start a heavy flywheel spinning the remove the drive. It keeps spinning for a long time.

Inertia is what keeps it spinning even though there is some friction (and drag) slowing it down.

I am not sure you can say that is a correct answer.  We humans do not really know why it keeps spinning or why we fly thru the air when a bus stops suddenly.

Inertia describes what we see and experience but we cannot say it happens because of inertia.       Newton said it was an innate property of matter but that kind of idea has I think been revised.

Well, it changes a little as you go into particle physics. In particle physics everything has momentum, and that momentum always has to be conserved. If a particle want another particle to change direction, it has to give up some of it's own momentum to give tot he other particle (Newtons third law). And for particles with mass, the velocity of that particle is determined by it's momentum and mass. So the velocity of a particle is directly proportional to it's momentum. To change the velocity, you need to add or subtract momentum. So inertia is a result of conservation of momentum. But there is also mass, and mass doesn't really do anything other than cause gravitation and act as a constant in a momentum-velocity conversion. So, mass and inertia might be the same thing.

When you are at school if somebody asks why you need to wear a seat belt it is sufficient to be told it is because of a law of motion called inertia.

At some point however you might ask yourself what is inertia?    Newton thought it was an "innate resistive force".     We are still left with the questions what is it? and what causes it?

From wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Newton's original ideas of "innate resistive force" were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can know, the term "inertia" has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism. Thus, ultimately, "inertia" in modern classical physics has come to be a name for the same phenomenon described by Newton's First Law of Motion, and the two concepts are now considered to be equivalent.

Just because we don't know why something happens, or exactly how it happens does not mean it does not happen.

No scientist will ever say that we know everything. That's the great thing about science: the awareness that we can learn more.

It is the opposite of dogma ("I say it is so and therefor it is so, for now and forever")

The fact that inertia exists is beyond any and all dispute. Saying inertia does not exist is like saying 'if I drop a hammer it will not fall'. That's not even just an analogy. It's quite literally that.

Put another way:

My 11 year old nephew does not know how a microchip works. But he sure as hell can play Minecraft on my computer.

Quote from: Woody on August 29, 2016, 12:22:22 AM

Are you saying things at rest staying that way or something in motion staying in motion unless something acts on it can not be observed?

It is really simple to observe.  Find any object sitting somewhere and give a push.

Objects resist change and it is observable from where you, me and everyone around the world are right now.

I have seen you deny certain things, but this takes the cake.

Nothing is ever at rest.

Nothing ever stays in motion without a force acting on it.

So tell me where inertia fits in?

It's a word that has no real meaning, at all.
The only time it has meaning is for fantasy. It's for this staying in motion unless something acts on an object.
It's basically saying that if you push an object it resists the push. I ask if the resistance to push is inertia and get told that it's not exactly that.
I ask what it is.
I get told that when an object is in motion it stays in motion and resists change to that motion.
I then ask if inertia is resistance and get told no.
I ask what inertia actually is and get told that it isn't actually anything.

Don't pretend it's simple when it can't  even be explained.

That is true.  Everything observable is falling around something.

That means it still takes something to alter somethings trajectory.

So I am rotating with the Earth.  Which is orbiting the Sun.  Which is orbiting our galaxy. 
Which means to alter my velocity and walk across a room I need to apply a force.

We can also simplify it a little and just look at things relatively.  So when I am not walking we can say I am standing still.  Even if me along with everything else is moving.

Yes something stays in motion once a force is acted on it.  Those forces are rather well known.  That is why ballistic trajectories can be accurately calculated. 

I would like t point out I remember learning this stuff either in junior-high or high school.  If you are having difficulty understanding it you certainly are going to have great difficulty coming up with correct answers about the world around us.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 29, 2016, 04:01:44 AM

When you are at school if somebody asks why you need to wear a seat belt it is sufficient to be told it is because of a law of motion called inertia.

At some point however you might ask yourself what is inertia?    Newton thought it was an "innate resistive force".     We are still left with the questions what is it? and what causes it?

From wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Newton's original ideas of "innate resistive force" were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can know, the term "inertia" has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism. Thus, ultimately, "inertia" in modern classical physics has come to be a name for the same phenomenon described by Newton's First Law of Motion, and the two concepts are now considered to be equivalent.

Just because we don't know why something happens, or exactly how it happens does not mean it does not happen.

No scientist will ever say that we know everything. That's the great thing about science: the awareness that we can learn more.

It is the opposite of dogma ("I say it is so and therefor it is so, for now and forever")

The fact that inertia exists is beyond any and all dispute. Saying inertia does not exist is like saying 'if I drop a hammer it will not fall'. That's not even just an analogy. It's quite literally that.

Put another way:

My 11 year old nephew does not know how a microchip works. But he sure as hell can play Minecraft on my computer.

>>Just because we don't know why something happens, or exactly how it happens does not mean it does not happen.

That is not in dispute by anybody in this thread.   However some people are saying inertia exists as if it is some property of matter - eg newtons "innate resistive force".    You are in the newtonian camp or one like it.

The experts today are talking about a principle rather than a thing that exists inside something or whatever you are thinking inertia is.

Are you disputing that wiki quote?  What point are you making?

This is what started this discussion:

Quote from: rabinoz on August 29, 2016, 02:16:05 AM

If you start a heavy flywheel spinning the remove the drive. It keeps spinning for a long time.

Inertia is what keeps it spinning even though there is some friction (and drag) slowing it down.

I am not sure you can say that is a correct answer.  We humans do not really know why it keeps spinning or why we fly thru the air when a bus stops suddenly.

Inertia describes what we see and experience but we cannot say it happens because of inertia.       Newton said it was an innate property of matter but that kind of idea has I think been revised.

If I could see  what inertia is in reality I'd accept it. I do not see it and neither do you.
You argue for it because you were mind trained to do so but will fiercely deny you are brainwashed and instead substitute it for being scientifically educated.

I've asked time and time again what inertia is and nobody has answered.
I done the same with gravity and the same thing.
It happens with many so called science concepts/theories.
I get told what all these things do but never what they are.

That's because some things are defined by what they do.  Inertia and gravity are among them.

I get told that nobody knows what they are but they just happen to work and be used for this and that.

Inertia is a concept, not a thing.  It's like asking, what is wetness?  Inertia is a property of matter like wetness is a property of water.

Inertia is a property of matter like wetness is a property of water.

ah but you can see touch and feel wetness.

The experts are saying it is a principle and you are saying it is a property?     

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2016, 05:34:16 AM

Inertia is a property of matter like wetness is a property of water.

ah but you can see touch and feel wetness.

The experts are saying it is a principle and you are saying it is a property

You can taste saltiness. You can feel wetness. And you can experience inertia.

If you drive a car and apply the break, you experience inertia. Inertia is your body trying to keep moving in a constant speed while the car decelerates.

We are now talking at a pre-school level. I'm sure this is something we can now all accept?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 29, 2016, 05:43:20 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2016, 05:34:16 AM

Inertia is a property of matter like wetness is a property of water.

ah but you can see touch and feel wetness.

The experts are saying it is a principle and you are saying it is a property

You can taste saltiness. You can feel wetness. And you can experience inertia.

If you drive a car and apply the break, you experience inertia. Inertia is your body trying to keep moving in a constant speed while the car decelerates.

We are now talking at a pre-school level. I'm sure this is something we can now all accept?

Seems to me you are completely unaware of the subject matter at the moment.

Seems to me you are completely unaware of the subject matter at the moment.

I have no idea what you mean with this.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 29, 2016, 05:53:16 AM

Seems to me you are completely unaware of the subject matter at the moment.

I have no idea what you mean with this.

You are wanting to go backwards towards junior understandings of what we mean by inertia rather than going forwards to what todays experts are thinking about inertia.

By doing that you playing into the hands of sceptimatic.  He knows absolutely what we mean by inertia and he knows that if he asks his questions a thousand times he will be told by many people only what inertia does in terms of how we experience the meaning of the word inertia..  But moronically? or perhaps it is cleverly, he asks what is it?.    We do not know what inertia is exactly, all we can do is describe how we experience it.   However, several people here have said "inertia is the reason we move forwards", which produces the response "oh really?  well tell me the reason - what is it?"

We just do not know why it happens.

If you read all of the following and most of this thread you will get the impression sceptimatic is a troll or a raving lunatic ,  however some of what he is saying here is true.

If I could see  what inertia is in reality I'd accept it. I do not see it and neither do you.
It is true we cannot see inertia
You argue for it because you were mind trained to do so but will fiercely deny you are brainwashed and instead substitute it for being scientifically educated.
Many people here are passionately saying the reason we go forwards is because of inertia and yet in fact we do not know why we go fowards
I've asked time and time again what inertia is and nobody has answered.
False.   He has been given a good answer many times.  However he only wants an answer to what is inertia?  He is not interested in knowing what we understand by the word inertia.  He knows that already.   
I done the same with gravity and the same thing.
Gravity and inertia are similarly hard to explain in terms of what they are.  However, that said,  those words have an experimentally derived meaning that is rock solid and totally undisputed by any scientifically trained human.
It happens with many so called science concepts/theories.
I get told what all these things do but never what they are.
Yes it happens, but why is that a problem for scientifically trained humans?

The best answers I get for inertia are on the exact same level as talking to the invisible man.

It goes like this.
Who are you talking to?
I'm talking to the invisible man.

What is the invisible man saying to you?
Nothing; I'm just talking to him.

So how do you know he's there?
Because I'm talking to him and I just know he's there.


If people can just say they use the word INERTIA  because it's just easier to say than to actually explain a truth, then I'll accept that.

If someone can actually give me proof that inertia actually does something to real effect, then I'll accept that as well.

What I won't accept, is people saying inertia just is. I won't accept people saying inertia is an objects resistance to movement and then an object staying in motion.

So I ask again. Can anyone tell me what inertia is and if not, is there something that mimics the reality of what inertia is supposed to be?

Let's take a step back and try to distill something out of this.

I'll do a Q&A with Scepti, and will answer for him. If he thinks I don't say what he means or if I am building a straw man, I'll no doubt hear that.

O: What is denpressure
S: Denpressure means that atmospheric pressure is the cause of gravity. The atmosphere pushing down on an object makes it fall.
O: But what if you remove the atmospheric pressure? Would there be gravity in a vacuum?
S: A vacuum does not exist, you can only lower the pressure but never remove the atmosphere from a container.
O: If the pressure is lowered in a chamber, will an object then become lighter?
S: No.
O: Why not?
S: Because there is atmospheric pressure built up in tiny pockets inside all matter
O: But if there is less pressure outside the object, why would the gravity on the object stay the same? Especially since any trapped atmosphere inside an object would extert a pressure outward (as evidenced by a balloon in a vacuum lower pressure environment?
S: <insert continuation of the discussion here>

I think this is the point where we are now. Care to answer/add to this?

Let's take a step back and try to distill something out of this.

I'll do a Q&A with Scepti, and will answer for him. If he thinks I don't say what he means or if I am building a straw man, I'll no doubt hear that.

O: What is denpressure
S: Denpressure means that atmospheric pressure is the cause of gravity. The atmosphere pushing down on an object makes it fall.
O: But what if you remove the atmospheric pressure? Would there be gravity in a vacuum?
S: A vacuum does not exist, you can only lower the pressure but never remove the atmosphere from a container.
O: If the pressure is lowered in a chamber, will an object then become lighter?
S: No.
O: Why not?
S: Because there is atmospheric pressure built up in tiny pockets inside all matter
O: But if there is less pressure outside the object, why would the gravity on the object stay the same? Especially since any trapped atmosphere inside an object would extert a pressure outward (as evidenced by a balloon in a vacuum lower pressure environment?
S: <insert continuation of the discussion here>

I think this is the point where we are now. Care to answer/add to this?

You're  not even answering it correctly, so you're wasting your time.

So I ask again. Can anyone tell me what inertia is and if not, is there something that mimics the reality of what inertia is supposed to be?

I am not going to tell you what intertia is but I guess that your imagination just fails in this case. To understand inertia you must be able to imagine environment without anything else than object. No air or pressure, no friction, no anything but object itself. As I understand it is not acceptable situation in your case.

Quote from: Omega on August 29, 2016, 07:37:06 AM

Let's take a step back and try to distill something out of this.

I'll do a Q&A with Scepti, and will answer for him. If he thinks I don't say what he means or if I am building a straw man, I'll no doubt hear that.

O: What is denpressure
S: Denpressure means that atmospheric pressure is the cause of gravity. The atmosphere pushing down on an object makes it fall.
O: But what if you remove the atmospheric pressure? Would there be gravity in a vacuum?
S: A vacuum does not exist, you can only lower the pressure but never remove the atmosphere from a container.
O: If the pressure is lowered in a chamber, will an object then become lighter?
S: No.
O: Why not?
S: Because there is atmospheric pressure built up in tiny pockets inside all matter
O: But if there is less pressure outside the object, why would the gravity on the object stay the same? Especially since any trapped atmosphere inside an object would extert a pressure outward (as evidenced by a balloon in a vacuum lower pressure environment?
S: <insert continuation of the discussion here>

I think this is the point where we are now. Care to answer/add to this?

You're  not even answering it correctly, so you're wasting your time.

I am trying to write this in good faith. If I was incorrect, please say so. I am witholding any and all debate from my side until I have a firm grasp of the discussion and it would help I think if we boil it down.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2016, 04:32:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 03:05:23 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2016, 02:56:01 AM

Also, I would be very very pleased if you could use proper names for all of your different components of your model, instead of saying things like "molecules/atoms/matter or whatever name is or wants to be used about them". Because I get a bit confused as to exactly what you are talking about sometimes.

But otherwise I think I get it. So, we live in this "cell" that made up of lots of bits of matter (It would be nice if you would give this piece of matter some name. Don't name it an atom or molecule, it would be confusing). All the matter is connected, so there can't be any vacuum between them. And if two pieces of matter are pushed together really hard, one of them swallows the other and they form a "jawbreaker" (once again, a proper name would be nice), which changes how that piece of two bits of matter behaves (we get a new element/material).

Basically you're starting to get the gist of it. Just nibble away at it and feel free to add names to whatever is confusing you.

But, don't you have names for these things? If you want people to understand your model, it's usually good to name things, so people know what you are talking about, and to make it easier than saying "expanding and retracting pieces of matter" or so that people don't think of the candy when you say "jawbreaker".

But okay. So, the next question: what are solids, what are liquids, what are gases, and what is plasma? As in, how does the matter behaves in a solid, how does it behave in a liquid, etc.?

@sceptimatic?

@sceptimatic?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 07:16:16 AM

So I ask again. Can anyone tell me what inertia is and if not, is there something that mimics the reality of what inertia is supposed to be?

I am not going to tell you what intertia is but I guess that your imagination just fails in this case. To understand inertia you must be able to imagine environment without anything else than object. No air or pressure, no friction, no anything but object itself. As I understand it is not acceptable situation in your case.

That's the first real answer I've had. It's totally fantasy but that's beside the point.
You've just explained that inertia is a word that plays a part in fantasy science.
Thanks for that.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2016, 12:00:08 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2016, 04:32:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 03:05:23 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2016, 02:56:01 AM

Also, I would be very very pleased if you could use proper names for all of your different components of your model, instead of saying things like "molecules/atoms/matter or whatever name is or wants to be used about them". Because I get a bit confused as to exactly what you are talking about sometimes.

But otherwise I think I get it. So, we live in this "cell" that made up of lots of bits of matter (It would be nice if you would give this piece of matter some name. Don't name it an atom or molecule, it would be confusing). All the matter is connected, so there can't be any vacuum between them. And if two pieces of matter are pushed together really hard, one of them swallows the other and they form a "jawbreaker" (once again, a proper name would be nice), which changes how that piece of two bits of matter behaves (we get a new element/material).

Basically you're starting to get the gist of it. Just nibble away at it and feel free to add names to whatever is confusing you.

But, don't you have names for these things? If you want people to understand your model, it's usually good to name things, so people know what you are talking about, and to make it easier than saying "expanding and retracting pieces of matter" or so that people don't think of the candy when you say "jawbreaker".

But okay. So, the next question: what are solids, what are liquids, what are gases, and what is plasma? As in, how does the matter behaves in a solid, how does it behave in a liquid, etc.?

@sceptimatic?

@sceptimatic?

I said you could name them so you know what you're dealing with. By doing this it means you  have a better chance to grasp it all and fit it together.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 07:46:09 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 29, 2016, 07:37:06 AM

Let's take a step back and try to distill something out of this.

I'll do a Q&A with Scepti, and will answer for him. If he thinks I don't say what he means or if I am building a straw man, I'll no doubt hear that.

O: What is denpressure
S: Denpressure means that atmospheric pressure is the cause of gravity. The atmosphere pushing down on an object makes it fall.
O: But what if you remove the atmospheric pressure? Would there be gravity in a vacuum?
S: A vacuum does not exist, you can only lower the pressure but never remove the atmosphere from a container.
O: If the pressure is lowered in a chamber, will an object then become lighter?
S: No.
O: Why not?
S: Because there is atmospheric pressure built up in tiny pockets inside all matter
O: But if there is less pressure outside the object, why would the gravity on the object stay the same? Especially since any trapped atmosphere inside an object would extert a pressure outward (as evidenced by a balloon in a vacuum lower pressure environment?
S: <insert continuation of the discussion here>

I think this is the point where we are now. Care to answer/add to this?

You're  not even answering it correctly, so you're wasting your time.

I am trying to write this in good faith. If I was incorrect, please say so. I am witholding any and all debate from my side until I have a firm grasp of the discussion and it would help I think if we boil it down.

I did say so.

Quote from: Omega on August 29, 2016, 07:48:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 07:46:09 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 29, 2016, 07:37:06 AM

Let's take a step back and try to distill something out of this.

I'll do a Q&A with Scepti, and will answer for him. If he thinks I don't say what he means or if I am building a straw man, I'll no doubt hear that.

O: What is denpressure
S: Denpressure means that atmospheric pressure is the cause of gravity. The atmosphere pushing down on an object makes it fall.
O: But what if you remove the atmospheric pressure? Would there be gravity in a vacuum?
S: A vacuum does not exist, you can only lower the pressure but never remove the atmosphere from a container.
O: If the pressure is lowered in a chamber, will an object then become lighter?
S: No.
O: Why not?
S: Because there is atmospheric pressure built up in tiny pockets inside all matter
O: But if there is less pressure outside the object, why would the gravity on the object stay the same? Especially since any trapped atmosphere inside an object would extert a pressure outward (as evidenced by a balloon in a vacuum lower pressure environment?
S: <insert continuation of the discussion here>

I think this is the point where we are now. Care to answer/add to this?

You're  not even answering it correctly, so you're wasting your time.

I am trying to write this in good faith. If I was incorrect, please say so. I am witholding any and all debate from my side until I have a firm grasp of the discussion and it would help I think if we boil it down.

I did say so.

What did I get wrong?