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

It might just be me overextending the analogy, but you'd still feel the force of the fan even if you positioned yourself to be between where the blades seem to be (by the illusion). I understand why heat seems to be reflected, but I don't understand why it stops being reflected at, say, night.

Yes you would and so would everyone else around that fan but they would all see it in the same way as you and feel it in the same way as you, to a point.
The only time it changes is when people further out and around start to feel less force of it and also see less of the slow motion the further away from it they are.
I understand that I'm probably not explaining this very well and may have to keep explaining until it becomes more understandable.
Just bear with me as you have done.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 30, 2016, 05:52:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 04:55:19 AM

Another analogy coming.

A small ball of putty. You squeeze it and roll it and it becomes pliable.
You've peeled the layers of the strateria and separated them into smaller version of less layers. Keep doing this and you get more pliable and more pliable until you eventually break it down enough to becomes liquid. You basically release all elements eventually.

But, when you liquefy something it is still the same material. But earlier I'm sure you said that the number of layers in a strateria defines what material it is. If what you are saying is correct, then wouldn't whatever you liquefy start turning into other elements?

It's all the same material. Everything on Earth is the same material. The only difference to us is in how it's all connected in the almost infinite ways.

Have a good think about it.

When I say material, I obviously (I hope it's obvious) use the common definition of it, for example ice, steel, wood, concrete etc are all different materials (although they are made up of the same stuff. On our macroscopic levels, it doesn't make sense to say that wood and concrete is the same stuff if you are going to build something out of them). Let's take melting iron for example. If I heat it up, according to your model the strateria would start peeling off layers. But in your model the number of layers tells us what material it is. Let's say for example that iron has 6 layers and ice has 5 layers. Then, if the iron strateria peeled of one layer because someone is trying to melt it, it would become ice. Or did I miss something?

In which case, would some states of elements technically be different elements, if we define an element by the number of layers? <-> Yes they would.

Thanks Jane for linking to that response. So a material is not defined by a single number of layers, but a range of layers. Then I understand. And I assume that the reason the strateria is not strictly bound by each other anymore is because micateria that is not part of a strateria floats in between them, giving them the ability to swirl freely in the liquid (and gas, for gases)? And when you freeze a liquid, the free micatera is layered back onto the strateria.

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.

I'm not sure if I understand.  Are you saying that those demos were faked?

It's a reflection not an optical illusion. The only illusion is the illusion that it's moving so slowly.

So, it follows that it's position in the sky is an optical illusion - it's not actually where we think it is, but zooming around at millions of miles an hour. Yes?

So, if it's position in the sky is an optical illusion, why does all the heat come from that position? 


I'm really not sure how the wagon wheel effect would work with a light moving at high speeds in an arc across the sky.  I suspect it would just look like a streak of light, something like this:

Quote from: Jane

It might just be me overextending the analogy, but you'd still feel the force of the fan even if you positioned yourself to be between where the blades seem to be (by the illusion). I understand why heat seems to be reflected, but I don't understand why it stops being reflected at, say, night.

Yes you would and so would everyone else around that fan but they would all see it in the same way as you and feel it in the same way as you, to a point.
The only time it changes is when people further out and around start to feel less force of it and also see less of the slow motion the further away from it they are.
I understand that I'm probably not explaining this very well and may have to keep explaining until it becomes more understandable.
Just bear with me as you have done.

So, the force would depend based on distance from the centre, I understand that, but if everyone would feel force no matter where the blades appear to be, then for the Sun shouldn't the same hold and nights would give the same heat as day?

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.

I'm not sure if I understand.  Are you saying that those demos were faked?

No lol. I'm saying that those demos don't tell me anything about inertia.

So, it follows that it's position in the sky is an optical illusion - it's not actually where we think it is, but zooming around at millions of miles an hour. Yes?

So, if it's position in the sky is an optical illusion, why does all the heat come from that position? 

Just because it's an optical illusion doesn't mean it's not in all positions.
Let's slow the reflections down, what happens?
You see them whizzing by as a streak of arc light to your view.
If it slowed down further you would see the reflection moving around in that arc looking way, except if this happened, then the Earth organisms would die due to the crap coverage. See what I'm saying?

I'm really not sure how the wagon wheel effect would work with a light moving at high speeds in an arc across the sky.  I suspect it would just look like a streak of light, something like this:

Slowed down a little and you would see it as streaks.
We actually do see the streaks when it rains. They're called rainbows.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 06:02:30 AM

Quote from: Jane

It might just be me overextending the analogy, but you'd still feel the force of the fan even if you positioned yourself to be between where the blades seem to be (by the illusion). I understand why heat seems to be reflected, but I don't understand why it stops being reflected at, say, night.

Yes you would and so would everyone else around that fan but they would all see it in the same way as you and feel it in the same way as you, to a point.
The only time it changes is when people further out and around start to feel less force of it and also see less of the slow motion the further away from it they are.
I understand that I'm probably not explaining this very well and may have to keep explaining until it becomes more understandable.
Just bear with me as you have done.

So, the force would depend based on distance from the centre, I understand that, but if everyone would feel force no matter where the blades appear to be, then for the Sun shouldn't the same hold and nights would give the same heat as day?

No because the centre of Earth is massive gradient. It's a mound. The reflected suns reflection spinning on one area would be blocked off to other further around the mound.
They only see the fade out or the sun set or the sunrise from their vantage point.
Then there's the other point where the suns reflection is totally obscured from view for those on the other side of the mound to the one where the sun is full swing, so to speak.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 30, 2016, 06:28:35 AM

So, it follows that it's position in the sky is an optical illusion - it's not actually where we think it is, but zooming around at millions of miles an hour. Yes?

So, if it's position in the sky is an optical illusion, why does all the heat come from that position? 

Just because it's an optical illusion doesn't mean it's not in all positions.
Let's slow the reflections down, what happens?
You see them whizzing by as a streak of arc light to your view.
If it slowed down further you would see the reflection moving around in that arc looking way, except if this happened, then the Earth organisms would die due to the crap coverage. See what I'm saying?

No, I don't understand at all.  What I'm asking is, why do we feel heat coming from the point we see as the sun, when the heat should be coming from an entire arc?

Slowed down a little and you would see it as streaks.
We actually do see the streaks when it rains. They're called rainbows.

I presume you are joking?  This is the sun streaking through the sky:

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 30, 2016, 06:45:02 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 30, 2016, 06:28:35 AM

So, it follows that it's position in the sky is an optical illusion - it's not actually where we think it is, but zooming around at millions of miles an hour. Yes?

So, if it's position in the sky is an optical illusion, why does all the heat come from that position? 

Just because it's an optical illusion doesn't mean it's not in all positions.
Let's slow the reflections down, what happens?
You see them whizzing by as a streak of arc light to your view.
If it slowed down further you would see the reflection moving around in that arc looking way, except if this happened, then the Earth organisms would die due to the crap coverage. See what I'm saying?

No, I don't understand at all.  What I'm asking is, why do we feel heat coming from the point we see as the sun, when the heat should be coming from an entire arc?

Quote

Slowed down a little and you would see it as streaks.
We actually do see the streaks when it rains. They're called rainbows.

I presume you are joking?  This is the sun streaking through the sky:

No it's not the sun, it's the effects of it, as in the wavelengths that we all feel.

They only see the fade out or the sun set or the sunrise from their vantage point.
Then there's the other point where the suns reflection is totally obscured from view for those on the other side of the mound to the one where the sun is full swing, so to speak.

That does partially help, but not completely. I think I might just be misunderstanding something fundamental, so it might be easier to step back.
My understanding of the wagon wheel illusion, using a wheel as the easier illustration, light always reflects off the wheel, at every point of its revolution. A person who watches it might simply seem to see it turning very slowly, the spokes moving with less speed than they really are.
However, the wheel is always reflecting light, the reason for the sight is just that the observer's eyes can only take in so much detail, a lot of it gets left by the wayside. If you could slow down time for the person, while the light around the wheel behaves the exact same way, they'd be able to see each complete revolution because light is still shining to and from the wheel, they just have more time to process the information.

It seems like your application is less subjective, so I'm assuming there's a detail I'm not taking into account.
Is my understanding of the principles behind the illusion accurate, or am I missing something?
As always, thank you for taking the time to explain, sorry this one's taking a while.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 29, 2016, 06:16:19 PM

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.

I'm not passing about. It simply makes no sense to me. You're saying that when the outer layers are shed, they take their place on other surrounding particles. The act of joining with another particle should change each particle's physical properties, no?

No it's not the sun, it's the effects of it, as in the wavelengths that we all feel.

Well, yes, it's light (you don't need the sun) shining through moisture.  You seemed to be suggesting it was the sun streaking through the sky:

Slowed down a little and you would see it as streaks.
We actually do see the streaks when it rains. They're called rainbows.

But it's not the sun streaking then?  Anyway, let's forget rainbows if you like.

What I can't work out is we feel heat coming from the sun when the sun isn't even there, just an optical illusion?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 29, 2016, 08:02:37 PM

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.

Scepti seems to think the tensile strength of a spring changes VERY significantly in a low pressure system, something that has never been observed in reality.

Quote from: Jane on August 30, 2016, 02:12:27 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 29, 2016, 08:02:37 PM

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.

if the spring is moving you must take it into account.

If the spring is still you do not have to take it into account.

The final amount of an elastic springs stetching to a final stationary position is totally unaffected by air resistance and so air resistance has no need to be factored into hooks law.

This is precisely why scales should work normally within low pressure systems. What scepti is suggesting simply does not reflect reality.

48 pages and I still don't have any idea how an arc light can be suspended in midair.

Scepti you contradict yourself when you speak of the sun. You claim it is an arc light "in the center of the earth" but then you claim this light is "high up in the air"

So which is it? Is it underground? It it above ground? What makes it act like a projector? What causes the light to move across the sky? What causes the moon to look exactly like a rock with craters and shadows? What causes phases of the moon? What causes parallax? Why does Venus appear to orbit in the opposite direction?

I have so many questions left unanswered.

This is precisely why scales should work normally within low pressure systems. What scepti is suggesting simply does not reflect reality.

Keep on reading. The effect would be greater under Scepti's model given how important air is.

Scepti you contradict yourself when you speak of the sun. You claim it is an arc light "in the center of the earth" but then you claim this light is "high up in the air"

The light is underground, it shines through a layer of crystal and is reflected off the dome, so what we see is a high-up reflection, but the source is lower down.

So which is it? Is it underground? It it above ground? What makes it act like a projector? What causes the light to move across the sky? What causes the moon to look exactly like a rock with craters and shadows? What causes phases of the moon? What causes parallax? Why does Venus appear to orbit in the opposite direction?

I have so many questions left unanswered.

Wait until you have a grip on the basics before going after those questions, seriously. Walk before you run. I'm not going to ask about, say, eclipses when I'm not sure I know how the Sun or moon even work.

Keep on reading. The effect would be greater under Scepti's model given how important air is.

Yes, I understand how scales should work under scepti's model. I'm saying that nobody has ever seen a spring act so significantly differently under low pressure. Scepti's model states something that has not been observed in reality. I'm not arguing the finer points of his model. I'm arguing how those points fail to reflect reality.

The light is underground, it shines through a layer of crystal and is reflected off the dome, so what we see is a high-up reflection, but the source is lower down.

And this source is under the north pole, yet somehow the Arctic Circle is one of the coldest places on earth. This does not make sense to me.

Wait until you have a grip on the basics before going after those questions, seriously. Walk before you run. I'm not going to ask about, say, eclipses when I'm not sure I know how the Sun or moon even work.

I'm trying to understand the basics, but scepti seems to change his mind about where this arc light is supposed to be. He also hasn't mentioned how the pieces of graphite stay close enough together. As the graphite is vaporized, the 2 pieces need to be constantly moved closer and closer together, or they will move too far apart for a proper arc to form between them.

Since these graphite chunks have been burning for at least the past few thousand years,  there must be some mechanism that moves the chunks closer together. Such gigantic pieces of graphite would require considerable, consistent force applied to result in constant light and heat.

Quote from: markjo on August 30, 2016, 06:19:26 AM

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.

I'm not sure if I understand.  Are you saying that those demos were faked?

No lol. I'm saying that those demos don't tell me anything about inertia.

That's because they're demonstrations of inertia, not explanations.

Yes, I understand how scales should work under scepti's model. I'm saying that nobody has ever seen a spring act so significantly differently under low pressure. Scepti's model states something that has not been observed in reality. I'm not arguing the finer points of his model. I'm arguing how those points fail to reflect reality.

In which case, it might be better to provide an example, it does sound as though you're saying "We don't observe this," simply because you're assuming a different model. Besides, the springs themselves wouldn't be so different, they'd just have less resistance to their movement when compressed. (Remember, as well, this was just my understanding, it might be wrong).

And this source is under the north pole, yet somehow the Arctic Circle is one of the coldest places on earth. This does not make sense to me.

There's a point related to heat I'm confused about as it is, it might be that the answer's related. It's also possible that there's simply a conspiracy answer akin to how the outer ring must be explained.

I'm trying to understand the basics, but scepti seems to change his mind about where this arc light is supposed to be.

From what I've seen, he hasn't changed his mind. The light's always been in the ground, its reflection high up, he might've used the shorthand to just talk about the Sun being in the sky but in context it's fairly clear what that means.

The light is underground, it shines through a layer of crystal and is reflected off the dome, so what we see is a high-up reflection, but the source is lower down.

This isn't true.

The 'electrode' is on top of an enormous mountain and shines through a crystal onto the ice dome.  When scepti says it's "at the centre of the world" he means the centre of the landmasses - like in the azimuthal equidistant projection.   Why nobody can see the mountain is not important.


We are firmly into the area of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 

@Bill, stop being obessed with "observations" - they have nothing to do with it.  What we are discussing is what is inside scepti's head, not what you see in a lab.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 02:28:33 AM

Pushing to the right cannot create low pressure.  What is happening on the right is irrelevant.

I'm not the one who isn't thinking here. It's irrelevant under your model, not Scepti's. Remember, all molecules want to expand, and all molecules are touching. Those are basic aspects of the model. When the pump pushes to the right, and pushes air form the outside away, it lessens the pressure acting inwards from that direction.
Pretty clear what that would mean. The molecules on the left are always trying to expand, and suddenly there's a point where there's no inwards force compressing them, so they'll choose to expand into that direction.

Quote

So you want me to believe if the pump 'moves to the right' at thousands of miles per hour, there is no leftwards force acting and if the pump moves at one inch per century there is the same no leftwards force acting???

What on Earth are you talking about??

It's not the pump that needs to move, it's the air it's pushing. So long as the same amount gets pushes away, allowing the air in the chamber to expand, you'd get the same result.

The problem with your line of argument is there are no pumps working in the manner you are describing.

All pumps have a barrier that moves, which then requires a response from the contained gas.

What is happening on the high pressure side is irrelevant because the force the contained gas experiences is not coming from the air outside of the system.

Even if you were to create a perfect vacuum outside the system, the contained gas can only experience less force if the barrier moves away from the contained gas.

I am finding the emphasis on pushing away the gas to be very odd.   Whatever model is used for the molecules the reduction in force the gas experiences is being created by the pumps moving barrier.

48 pages and I still don't have any idea how an arc light can be suspended in midair.

Scepti you contradict yourself when you speak of the sun. You claim it is an arc light "in the center of the earth" but then you claim this light is "high up in the air"

So which is it? Is it underground? It it above ground? What makes it act like a projector? What causes the light to move across the sky? What causes the moon to look exactly like a rock with craters and shadows? What causes phases of the moon? What causes parallax? Why does Venus appear to orbit in the opposite direction?

I have so many questions left unanswered.

Could we please concentrate on the very basic fundamentals of denpressure rather than on more esoteric thoughts?    What is the point of talking about the complexities of the Sun if do not yet understand what pressure is in this model which is called Denpressure?

This isn't true.

The 'electrode' is on top of an enormous mountain and shines through a crystal onto the ice dome.  When scepti says it's "at the centre of the world" he means the centre of the landmasses - like in the azimuthal equidistant projection.   Why nobody can see the mountain is not important.

Thanks for clarifying. i'd seen there was a mound, I didn't know how high up it went. I do recall him saying the source for the power came from lower down, if I remember.

The problem with your line of argument is there are no pumps working in the manner you are describing.

All pumps have a barrier that moves, which then requires a response from the contained gas.

What is happening on the high pressure side is irrelevant because the force the contained gas experiences is not coming from the air outside of the system.

Even if you were to create a perfect vacuum outside the system, the contained gas can only experience less force if the barrier moves away from the contained gas.

I am finding the emphasis on pushing away the gas to be very odd.   Whatever model is used for the molecules the reduction in force the gas experiences is being created by the pumps moving barrier.

No force is exerted by the outside onto the inside. Remember that, under this model, there are no pull forces.
I would point out you have previously said that the pumps do work broadly the same way under each model. My description is somewhat simplified to try to illustrate the key points of the model, but the general basis should be clear.
Air in container. Pump attached: end result of that is a lower pressure adjacent to the air in the container. Air in contain expands and outer molecules are pushed out into the lower pressure.
This is how the model works. If you somehow freeze time and arrange all air molecules so that they fill half of a box, and the rest of the box is empty, then the molecules will seek to expand because that is what they're always trying to do. The only reason they don't normally is the pressure of other molecules all around them: reduce or remove that pressure, and they now have a direction to expand, which in turn means the outer layers will be pushed by the expanding inner layers outwards.

How the sun works in any model is something of great importance. Saying the sun is a reflection off of a dome is a gigantic claim, one that needs serious supporting evidence if it is to be taken seriously.

As far as I have seen, scepti has offered zero evidence for how the sun is supposed to work in this model. It simply works the way he says it works, end of story.

In fact, I have not seen scepti offer 1 piece of evidence supporting any of his claims. This is how the world works in his mind, yet he cannot illustrate his model using diagrams nor can he detail an experiment that will verify any of his claims.

Then he goes and labels himself a scientist. Simply mind-boggling.

In which case, it might be better to provide an example, it does sound as though you're saying "We don't observe this," simply because you're assuming a different model. Besides, the springs themselves wouldn't be so different, they'd just have less resistance to their movement when compressed. (Remember, as well, this was just my understanding, it might be wrong).

Hooke's law isn't in question here. I don't know why I would have to provide proof when it is commonly accepted that air pressure does not effect forces applied by a spring once it is fully expanded. If scepti wants to say springs are effected by air pressure to a greater degree than what we observe, then the burden of proof is upon him to show this. As I said before, he doesn't seem concerned with proofs.

There's a point related to heat I'm confused about as it is, it might be that the answer's related. It's also possible that there's simply a conspiracy answer akin to how the outer ring must be explained.

A conspiracy answer? Like The Conspiracy? What do you mean when you say this?

From what I've seen, he hasn't changed his mind. The light's always been in the ground, its reflection high up, he might've used the shorthand to just talk about the Sun being in the sky but in context it's fairly clear what that means.

I don't think he ever said the arc light was subterranean. The closest he ever came to saying this is the light is "at the center of the earth," which is certainly open to interpretation.

I guess we have to wait for scepti to clarify what he meant, because there is no way we can verify his claims in the real world.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 30, 2016, 09:21:03 AM

This isn't true.

The 'electrode' is on top of an enormous mountain and shines through a crystal onto the ice dome.  When scepti says it's "at the centre of the world" he means the centre of the landmasses - like in the azimuthal equidistant projection.   Why nobody can see the mountain is not important.

Thanks for clarifying. i'd seen there was a mound, I didn't know how high up it went. I do recall him saying the source for the power came from lower down, if I remember.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on August 30, 2016, 09:23:19 AM

The problem with your line of argument is there are no pumps working in the manner you are describing.

All pumps have a barrier that moves, which then requires a response from the contained gas.

What is happening on the high pressure side is irrelevant because the force the contained gas experiences is not coming from the air outside of the system.

Even if you were to create a perfect vacuum outside the system, the contained gas can only experience less force if the barrier moves away from the contained gas.

I am finding the emphasis on pushing away the gas to be very odd.   Whatever model is used for the molecules the reduction in force the gas experiences is being created by the pumps moving barrier.

No force is exerted by the outside onto the inside. Remember that, under this model, there are no pull forces.
I would point out you have previously said that the pumps do work broadly the same way under each model. My description is somewhat simplified to try to illustrate the key points of the model, but the general basis should be clear.
Air in container. Pump attached: end result of that is a lower pressure adjacent to the air in the container. Air in contain expands and outer molecules are pushed out into the lower pressure.
This is how the model works. If you somehow freeze time and arrange all air molecules so that they fill half of a box, and the rest of the box is empty, then the molecules will seek to expand because that is what they're always trying to do. The only reason they don't normally is the pressure of other molecules all around them: reduce or remove that pressure, and they now have a direction to expand, which in turn means the outer layers will be pushed by the expanding inner layers outwards.

Why do i need to remember there are no pull forces??  In the standard physics model there are no  pull forces.

Vacuum cleaners do not suck.  Vacuum pumps do not suck.  Nothing is being pulled upon by these devices.

>>This is how the model works.  If you somehow freeze time and arrange all air molecules so that they fill half of a box, and the rest of the box is empty, then the molecules will seek to expand because that is what they're always trying to do. The only reason they don't normally is the pressure of other molecules all around them: reduce or remove that pressure, and they now have a direction to expand, which in turn means the outer layers will be pushed by the expanding inner layers outwards.

Half of that is exactly the same as the standard physics model.

This part is the same:

>>If you somehow freeze time and arrange all air molecules so that they fill half of a box, and the rest of the box is empty, then the molecules will seek to expand because that is what they're always trying to do

However this part does not fit with reality.

>>The only reason they don't normally is the pressure of other molecules all around them: reduce or remove that pressure, and they now have a direction to expand,

Gases naturally become mixed.   One portion of gas does normally expand into a container when there is another gas present.

>>Air in contain expands and outer molecules are pushed out into the lower pressure.

The way that is written is strange and it does not make sense.  You are beginning with air expanding and then talking about how the outer molecules are pushed out into the lower pressure.

How does the inner part expand ........... unless the outer molecules have already expanded into the lower pressure??

How the sun works in any model is something of great importance. Saying the sun is a reflection off of a dome is a gigantic claim, one that needs serious supporting evidence if it is to be taken seriously.

As far as I have seen, scepti has offered zero evidence for how the sun is supposed to work in this model. It simply works the way he says it works, end of story.

In fact, I have not seen scepti offer 1 piece of evidence supporting any of his claims. This is how the world works in his mind, yet he cannot illustrate his model using diagrams nor can he detail an experiment that will verify any of his claims.

Then he goes and labels himself a scientist. Simply mind-boggling.

OK but is there a point to what you are doing?   Some of us are attempting to work out what is behind his thought processes.   The topic here is denpressure and you are continually more or less derailing by talking about the Sun.

Have you been able to figure out the car situation yet scepti?  I'm curious how it works in your model.  If a car is driving in a circle to the left, and pressure is the reason everything inside ends up to the right side, then which side has the higher pressure?

Hooke's law isn't in question here. I don't know why I would have to provide proof when it is commonly accepted that air pressure does not effect forces applied by a spring once it is fully expanded. If scepti wants to say springs are effected by air pressure to a greater degree than what we observe, then the burden of proof is upon him to show this. As I said before, he doesn't seem concerned with proofs.

It wouldn't be noticeable as part of Hooke's law typically as experiments are typically conducted on the Earth's surface. All I'm saying is that molecules trying to expand would exert more of a force. Plus it'd be trickier to spot as it would compensate for the lack of pressure in vacuum chambers etc.

A conspiracy answer? Like The Conspiracy? What do you mean when you say this?

We can't have mapped the South pole under FET, why wouldn't that extend to the North?

I don't think he ever said the arc light was subterranean. The closest he ever came to saying this is the light is "at the center of the earth," which is certainly open to interpretation.

Well, under something at least: a layer of crystal.

Gases naturally become mixed.   One portion of gas does normally expand into a container when there is another gas present.

I never said it did.

The way that is written is strange and it does not make sense.  You are beginning with air expanding and then talking about how the outer molecules are pushed out into the lower pressure.

How does the inner part expand ........... unless the outer molecules have already expanded into the lower pressure??

Because all air is trying to expand at all times. The inner molecules are always trying to expand: if you imagine them crammed into a box, and then you poke a hole in the side, they're suddenly able to expand because they can push the molecules that were in the way, and actually move them outwards.
A molecule isn't going to see a hole and automatically move towards it (unless you're talking to JRowe), it has to be pushed. Good old Newton.
The outer layer is trying to expand, but it isn't going to make a break for it of its own volition, molecules don't work that way under either model. When the inner molecules try to expand, they'll find that the force that used to resist such expansion is weaker because the molecules can be moved along and aren't in the way as much.