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

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 11:59:32 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 29, 2016, 11:26:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 10:49:52 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 29, 2016, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 08:27:08 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 29, 2016, 08:20:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 11:48:45 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 28, 2016, 06:49:14 PM

If that slosh doesn't last very long, and I'm driving a car in a circle (let's say turning to the left), and as long as I do this, objects inside will tend to move toward the right side of the car, then how is that slosh lasting so long?

It's not a slosh effect when you're driving a car in a circle. It's a constant pressure effect upon your body.
The slosh effect will only kick in once you decelerate.

Is there a pressure difference between the left side of the interior and the right side of the interior?  Why does the pressure not equalize?

Because it's angled.

What is angled?

The car is angled as it continually circles.

Nope, that's not it.  I can get the same result placing objects inside a level box mounted on the end of a beam attached to a swivel at the other end and turning it.

Are you sure about this pressure difference?  Turning left, which side would have the higher pressure?

We are talking about the car. Do you now want to talk about a box on a beam?

I can make the turn in the car gently, and there is almost no tilt.  Anyway, the same result of objects inside having a tendency to end up at the side of the car opposite of the direction of turn happens regardless if it's a car or something else. 

Shall we use a car with a computer controlled suspension that keeps it level?  Now we have a car, or box, that remains level as it turns.  Objects inside still end up to one side. 

Which side has the higher pressure?  The side to the inside of the turn or the side to the outside of the turn?

If the car was cornering left then you would be pushed right.

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2016, 09:59:07 AM

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

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.

Inertia is what it does.  Inertia is why objects at rest stay at rest and why objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.  Please note that I'm referring to the objects as a whole, not the individual molecules that make up the objects.

Here is a video with seven demonstrations of inertia.

It literally makes no sense as a word.

Does the concept being demonstrated make any sense?

How does the atmosphere inside a car know which way to push the cars contents when the car starts to turn?
Also, how does your denpressure know which way to push objects to give them weight? You've mentioned some sort of stacking but how does that happen if you take a container, half fill it with something (water, rice or other things) seal it and then invert it?

Also, how does your denpressure know which way to push objects to give them weight? You've mentioned some sort of stacking but how does that happen if you take a container, half fill it with something (water, rice or other things) seal it and then invert it?

Direction-wise, the easiest way to think of denpressure is as an inverse kind of buoyancy. The force is due to air being displaced.
If you go to a pool, and force, say, a sponge ball under the water, you can move it left and right etc, and it'll always be trying to go upwards. Put it in a sealed container full of water under the water, the same will happen. By Scepti's model, this is because the fluid is being displaced from the top down, so the subsequent force tries to push the object back up.
It's much the same principle for denpressure. We start at the ground, so we displace air from the bottom-up, and the natural resistance to that force pushes us back down, and always does so.

Quote from: LuggerSailor on August 29, 2016, 03:30:17 PM

Also, how does your denpressure know which way to push objects to give them weight? You've mentioned some sort of stacking but how does that happen if you take a container, half fill it with something (water, rice or other things) seal it and then invert it?

Direction-wise, the easiest way to think of denpressure is as an inverse kind of buoyancy. The force is due to air being displaced.
If you go to a pool, and force, say, a sponge ball under the water, you can move it left and right etc, and it'll always be trying to go upwards. Put it in a sealed container full of water under the water, the same will happen. By Scepti's model, this is because the fluid is being displaced from the top down, so the subsequent force tries to push the object back up.
It's much the same principle for denpressure. We start at the ground, so we displace air from the bottom-up, and the natural resistance to that force pushes us back down, and always does so.

Yes, but then seal the container and invert it. How does the contents of the container know which way to push? Once it's sealed, it no longer has contact to the stacked thingeyjubbies that determine up, down left, right, forward or backward.

Yes, but then seal the container and invert it. How does the contents of the container know which way to push? Once it's sealed, it no longer has contact to the stacked thingeyjubbies that determine up, down left, right, forward or backward.

That's why the pool analogy is a good one. Take a container and a sponge ball, put them underwater. The ball tries to float. Put the ball in the container, invert the container, the ball is still trying to float. Just think of denpressure as much the same principle, only in the opposite direction.
An object displaces air from one direction. It will always displace air from that direction.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 29, 2016, 11:03:20 AM

Quote from: Jane on August 29, 2016, 10:59:57 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 29, 2016, 10:44:41 AM

If air pressure causes gravity, why wouldn't an object weigh less when the pressure is lowered?

If I recall correctly, it's because the scales by which you're measuring the weight of an object are affected by the lowered pressure. I might be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I do remember that discussion.

How would the springs be affected again?

I suspect the altered air pressure within the scales themselves (they're hardly designed to be airtight) would render them more sensitive: there's less resistance to motion. (This is just my understanding of the model, it's likely to be flawed).

I don't understand this at all. A spring's elasticity is effected by air pressure? Maybe slightly, but scepti's model seems to indicate quite a large change indeed.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 29, 2016, 11:08:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 10:58:53 AM

Solids are densely packed strateria. Liquids are densley packed micateria peeled from the layers of the densley packed strateria under ultra frequent vibration.
Gases are expanded micateria derived from  densley packed micateria that were under ultra frequent vibration.
Plasma is a variation of them all.

Strateria? Micateria?

Please define these words, they aren't in my dictionary.

When the solid particles 'peel' off, where do the peels go?

What happens to bubbles that pop to your eye in washing up suds?

They peel off and take their place as smaller, more condensed  bubbles that form around larger bubbles, whilst some don't fully peel off and end up covering portions of bubbles.

So the layers can 'pop' and simply attach parts of each layer to other surrounding jawbreakers? Wouldn't this affect the properties of the surrounding particles?

It's not a slosh effect when you're driving a car in a circle. It's a constant pressure effect upon your body.
The slosh effect will only kick in once you decelerate.

Quote from: 29silhouette on August 29, 2016, 12:21:53 PM

Shall we use a car with a computer controlled suspension that keeps it level?  Now we have a car, or box, that remains level as it turns.  Objects inside still end up to one side. 

Which side has the higher pressure?  The side to the inside of the turn or the side to the outside of the turn?

If the car was cornering left then you would be pushed right.

During that constant left turn, which side has the higher pressure?

I don't understand this at all. A spring's elasticity is effected by air pressure? Maybe slightly, but scepti's model seems to indicate quite a large change indeed.

Air would resist a spring's motion. Less air, less resistance, so I assume. I also assume the effect would be greater than you'd think in this model given how key air pressure is to, well, everything.
Again, this is only what I'm deducing, this isn't necessarily an accurate depiction of Scepti's model.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 29, 2016, 06:12:17 PM

I don't understand this at all. A spring's elasticity is effected by air pressure? Maybe slightly, but scepti's model seems to indicate quite a large change indeed.

Air would resist a spring's motion. Less air, less resistance, so I assume. I also assume the effect would be greater than you'd think in this model given how key air pressure is to, well, everything.
Again, this is only what I'm deducing, this isn't necessarily an accurate depiction of Scepti's model.

Of course air resists a spring's motion, I am certain of this. The question is how much the elasticity of a spring is effected by air resistance. I don't think by much, or air resistance would be a factor in Hooke's law. As it stands, Hooke's law only deals with a spring's tensile strength and the distance moved.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 29, 2016, 11:57:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 10:58:53 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 29, 2016, 09:28:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 08:01:14 AM

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.

Ok then. So, for the bits of matter I'll call them micateria (after the latin words for bit and matter, mica and materia) and the jawbreakers will be called strateria (after the latin words for layer and matter, stratum and materia). Why Latin? Why not. And yes, done in google translate.

So, back to the question:

Quote

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.?

Solids are densely packed strateria. Liquids are densley packed micateria peeled from the layers of the densley packed strateria under ultra frequent vibration.
Gases are expanded micateria derived from  densley packed micateria that were under ultra frequent vibration.
Plasma is a variation of them all.

So in your model, as in my model, heat energy is stored as vibrations. If something is hot enough, it vibrates so much that it releases itself from the solid (or liquid) and moves freely. So, I also assume that when a strateria is connected to another strateria, they cannot move freely but are bound in place unless you rip them apart or heat them up, but free micateria (that is not part of a strateria) can float around and glide between other micateria and strateria (it is not bound in place)?

They can push into other micateria and form smaller strateria.
The vibrations are mere expansion and contraction at frequencies under whatever pressures.

Ok, let me break up my assumption into one question at a time:
Hopefully we can both agree that heat is the cause of switching between solid-liquid-gas (we'll take plasma later). So, what is heat in your model?

Alright.  So why is it being stupidly claimed Brian Cox is a paid actor?

Here are the facts which anybody here can check for themself.

1.  A low pressure pump cannot work by only pushing on air unless it has a method of indefinately increasing the size of the contained volume so that the original volume becomes a trivial amount of volume contained in a larger volume.  For example an experiment is performed inside a syringe, where in principal the syringe can be made sufficiently long and sufficiently large all of the equipment can be installed inside the syringe before the plunger begins the long journey away from the experiment.     However, using an enormously long small diameter  syringe to keep increasing the size of the contained volume  would be stupid  because it would be much cheaper and simpler to use a small rotary pump.

2. The older style typical laboratory rotary 'vacuum' pump is using a piston in a cylinder to create high pressure in the pump that then flows out of the pump to the surrounding lower pressure environment.  The same piston is used to create low pressure in the pump to cause higher pressure air in the container to flow into the pump.

3. The newer style laboratory pumps Use a technology called Rotary vane to reduce pressure to 0.001 Bar.   The principle is,  however,  the same as in the older style pumps.  The pump has a low pressure side and a high pressure side.



3. These laboratory pumps have no difficulty taking a portion of the air that in the container,   separating it from the rest of the air in the container by containing it in the pump, and expelling this portion of the air so that it travels very far from the pump.

4. The molecules are not therefore connected together.

5. The pump is easily able to separate molecules.

6. Therefore, it is totally clear there is zero reason why a small and inexpensive low powered laboratory pump cannot eventually reduce the pressure in a large sealed container to 0.001 Bar, which is only a trivial 14.7 pounds per square inch less than the surroundings,  and no reason why Cox is a paid actor.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 11:03:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2016, 09:59:07 AM

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

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.

Inertia is what it does.  Inertia is why objects at rest stay at rest and why objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.  Please note that I'm referring to the objects as a whole, not the individual molecules that make up the objects.

Here is a video with seven demonstrations of inertia.

It literally makes no sense as a word.

Does the concept being demonstrated make any sense?

Not for any reality, no.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 11:14:24 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 29, 2016, 11:08:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 10:58:53 AM

Solids are densely packed strateria. Liquids are densley packed micateria peeled from the layers of the densley packed strateria under ultra frequent vibration.
Gases are expanded micateria derived from  densley packed micateria that were under ultra frequent vibration.
Plasma is a variation of them all.

Strateria? Micateria?

Please define these words, they aren't in my dictionary.

When the solid particles 'peel' off, where do the peels go?

What happens to bubbles that pop to your eye in washing up suds?

They peel off and take their place as smaller, more condensed  bubbles that form around larger bubbles, whilst some don't fully peel off and end up covering portions of bubbles.

So the layers can 'pop' and simply attach parts of each layer to other surrounding jawbreakers? Wouldn't this affect the properties of the surrounding particles?

I said pop to your eye. The reality is ,they are not popping but simply taking place in different parts of the bubbles after pushing through atmosphere.
You really have to think deeper if you really want to grasp this. If you're just pissing about then by all means, carry on.

How does the atmosphere inside a car know which way to push the cars contents when the car starts to turn?

The atmosphere doesn't. You placed the force upon it for it to act that way by changing the pressure by compression, using your energy.

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2016, 03:11:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 11:03:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2016, 09:59:07 AM

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

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.

Inertia is what it does.  Inertia is why objects at rest stay at rest and why objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.  Please note that I'm referring to the objects as a whole, not the individual molecules that make up the objects.

Here is a video with seven demonstrations of inertia.

It literally makes no sense as a word.

Does the concept being demonstrated make any sense?

Not for any reality, no.

Yep.  In the sceptimatic reality nothing is the same.

5 eggs at once.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 12:17:32 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2016, 03:11:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 29, 2016, 11:03:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 29, 2016, 09:59:07 AM

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

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.

Inertia is what it does.  Inertia is why objects at rest stay at rest and why objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.  Please note that I'm referring to the objects as a whole, not the individual molecules that make up the objects.

Here is a video with seven demonstrations of inertia.

It literally makes no sense as a word.

Does the concept being demonstrated make any sense?

Not for any reality, no.

Yep.  In the sceptimatic reality nothing is the same.

That's just the way it works. If we weren't filled with so much bullshit and fantasy then we'd have a chance of seeing more reality as well as understanding it.

All we're given is many fantasies and are asked to understand those, backed up with names and so called calculations that apparently make them true.

You're more than entitled to argue your case and run with  what you've been brought up with. I've had my fill of that life of indoctrinated crap and I've decided to work it out as it should be. From the baby step basics.

5 eggs at once.

What's it proving?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 12:54:13 AM

5 eggs at once.

What's it proving?

It proves that 5 eggs will remain sufficiently in the same position, at the same time,  so that at the same time, when the support for each egg is removed in a sideways direction even while each egg is pressing down upon each eggs own support, all 5 eggs fall into the different glass of water that is placed under each egg.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:02:20 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 12:54:13 AM

5 eggs at once.

What's it proving?

It proves the egg remains sufficiently in the same position that it can fall into a glass of water.

It's called resistance due to denpressure.

No inertia required.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:33:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:02:20 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 12:54:13 AM

5 eggs at once.

What's it proving?

It proves the egg remains sufficiently in the same position that it can fall into a glass of water.

It's called resistance due to denpressure.

No inertia required.

Sure.

Somebody shows eggs remain in approximately the same position and you produce something from your arse that relies on a low pressure pump that comes from your arse.

Even the mechanism of something as simple as a low pressure pump is verboten in your fantasy world.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:33:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:02:20 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 12:54:13 AM

5 eggs at once.

What's it proving?

It proves the egg remains sufficiently in the same position that it can fall into a glass of water.

It's called resistance due to denpressure.

No inertia required.

Sure.

Somebody shows eggs remain in the same position and you produce something from your arse that relies on a low pressure pump that comes from your arse.

Even the mechanism of something as simple as a low pressure pump is verboten in your fantasy world.

What's a low pressure pump in your mind?
You spent a lot of time putting up something that just circles everything being said. Did you do it to complicate matters so people can't see the simplicity?

You appear to be getting desperate in your attempts to scupper explanations.
If you're not interested in figuring out what's being said, then just take a back seat and just observe.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:42:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:33:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:02:20 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 12:54:13 AM

5 eggs at once.

What's it proving?

It proves the egg remains sufficiently in the same position that it can fall into a glass of water.

It's called resistance due to denpressure.

No inertia required.

Sure.

Somebody shows eggs remain in the same position and you produce something from your arse that relies on a low pressure pump that comes from your arse.

Even the mechanism of something as simple as a low pressure pump is verboten in your fantasy world.

What's a low pressure pump in your mind?
You spent a lot of time putting up something that just circles everything being said. Did you do it to complicate matters so people can't see the simplicity?

You appear to be getting desperate in your attempts to scupper explanations.
If you're not interested in figuring out what's being said, then just take a back seat and just observe.

ho ho ho.  You have claimed a so called vacuum pump works by only pushing on the air.   It cannot work unless it creates a low pressure as well as 'pushing on the air'

And you know that is true.

Ok, let me break up my assumption into one question at a time:
Hopefully we can both agree that heat is the cause of switching between solid-liquid-gas (we'll take plasma later). So, what is heat in your model?

@sceptimatic?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:46:55 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:42:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:33:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:02:20 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 12:54:13 AM

5 eggs at once.

What's it proving?

It proves the egg remains sufficiently in the same position that it can fall into a glass of water.

It's called resistance due to denpressure.

No inertia required.

Sure.

Somebody shows eggs remain in the same position and you produce something from your arse that relies on a low pressure pump that comes from your arse.

Even the mechanism of something as simple as a low pressure pump is verboten in your fantasy world.

What's a low pressure pump in your mind?
You spent a lot of time putting up something that just circles everything being said. Did you do it to complicate matters so people can't see the simplicity?

You appear to be getting desperate in your attempts to scupper explanations.
If you're not interested in figuring out what's being said, then just take a back seat and just observe.

ho ho ho.  You have claimed a so called vacuum pump works by only pushing on the air.   It cannot work unless it creates a low pressure as well as 'pushing on the air'

What do you think the pressure is right behind that pump that is pumping INTO the the atmosphere and compressing that atmospheric pressure in front?

You're just confusing yourself and it's due to your absolute refusal to dare to step outside of the box you were sealed into.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 29, 2016, 09:51:15 PM

Ok, let me break up my assumption into one question at a time:
Hopefully we can both agree that heat is the cause of switching between solid-liquid-gas (we'll take plasma later). So, what is heat in your model?

@sceptimatic?

I've just told you what it is. Everything in my last post to you is the reason for heat.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:51:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:46:55 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:42:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:37:44 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 01:33:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 01:02:20 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 12:54:13 AM

5 eggs at once.

What's it proving?

It proves the egg remains sufficiently in the same position that it can fall into a glass of water.

It's called resistance due to denpressure.

No inertia required.

Sure.

Somebody shows eggs remain in the same position and you produce something from your arse that relies on a low pressure pump that comes from your arse.

Even the mechanism of something as simple as a low pressure pump is verboten in your fantasy world.

What's a low pressure pump in your mind?
You spent a lot of time putting up something that just circles everything being said. Did you do it to complicate matters so people can't see the simplicity?

You appear to be getting desperate in your attempts to scupper explanations.
If you're not interested in figuring out what's being said, then just take a back seat and just observe.

ho ho ho.  You have claimed a so called vacuum pump works by only pushing on the air.   It cannot work unless it creates a low pressure as well as 'pushing on the air'

What do you think the pressure is right behind that pump that is pumping INTO the the atmosphere and compressing that atmospheric pressure in front?

You're just confusing yourself and it's due to your absolute refusal to dare to step outside of the box you were sealed into.

How about you talk using english instead of sceptimatic world language?.

Nobody else says the pressure 'right behind that pump' because nobody understands what it means.

What does this mean??

>>What do you think the pressure is right behind that pump that is pumping INTO the the atmosphere and compressing that atmospheric pressure in front?

Where is this pressure that is located "right behind that pump" ??

Of course air resists a spring's motion, I am certain of this. The question is how much the elasticity of a spring is effected by air resistance. I don't think by much, or air resistance would be a factor in Hooke's law. As it stands, Hooke's law only deals with a spring's tensile strength and the distance moved.

Well, air resistance would be basically uniform normally, you wouldn't need to take it into account.