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

What the fuck is Lunix?    Is this another "hilarious" in-joke?

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html

Be careful. That site ranks even above this one on the what-the-fuck-ometer.

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 08:14:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 01, 2016, 08:03:51 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 07:47:34 AM

Quote from: User324 on September 01, 2016, 07:08:43 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on September 01, 2016, 06:55:45 AM

And why am I explaining something here, that any kid, who's ever over inflated a bicycle tire understand in an instant?

Because flat earthers have yet to reach the intelligence level of a kid.

There is that. This is simple grade school stuff. A balloon blown up and then left go. A water hose with a thumb held over the end. ALL covered by 4th grade. but here we have more than 50 pages and still no understanding by the true believers in FET. How sad is that?

Your inability to understand is not the fault of the FES.

Tail chasing "logic." Is that the best you can do? Nothing in FET makes sense. NOTHING. And NOTHING supports it.

Wow, can you make up any more words?  Perhaps you could just type random letters on your keyboard, like other RE'ers do?

Hey I try. Why not make up words. This is a fantasy site, so make believe is part of the game.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 01, 2016, 02:41:44 PM

We are going in circles now.

You do not seem to have understood the reason for my questions and therefore your answers seem to be off on a tangent.

From my perspective I seem to have answered every question you've asked. Rather than expecting me to guess the motive behind your questions (?!) it might be far more easier, for both of us, if you simply explained why what I've said doesn't make sense, rather than repeating the same questions.

Omitting repeated questions, because all I can do on that count is give you the answer I've already given:

Quote

I can see your response applying to the standard physics model.    In the standard model a very small pump able to create a low pressure in a small container will eventually create the same low pressure in a very large container.   However the idea a small pump can depressurise a very large container causes a very big problem for sceptimatic but i have no idea why.  (larger containers have 'more atmospheric pressure')

The size of the pump wasn't relevant to the question you were asking. The guiding principle behind why more energy is needed to take out more molecules is the same regardless of the sizes of pump and chamber. If you wanted to ask about varying sizes then feel free to do so, I believe I gave an answer, but make it clear two questions are meant to be connected.

Quote

I am not understanding these answers.   In this model the pump cannot create a space between the pump and the molecules.     But you tell me the molecules cannot go thru the hole unless they are pushed and molecules always want to expand.   If they cannot go thru the hole the pump will carry on moving and it will create a space between the pump and the molecules which implies they can expand and there will be no gap.

They do go through the hole, because they are pushed. How many permutations of this do I need to give before you acknowledge what I explicitly state? "The push from the inner molecules is always going to happen, because it is always happening." And again, they do go through the hole thanks to expansion, it just won't be the case that the whole molecule goes through the hole, because there's nothing to push it from its original location.
The inner molecules expanding pushes the molecules around them. A lack of force in one direction allows expansion in that direction, for all molecules.
Seriously, are you reading a word I'm saying? I can understand finding some of it unclear, but these are things explicitly stated, that you seem to be claiming the opposite of.

Quote

I cannot see anything in this model to justify the idea brian cox is an actor.    You tell me pumps need more power when fewer molecules remain but what is the mechanism to cause the pump to need infinite power??   How can the molecules interfer with the pump when there is only a small pressure the pump is working against of 14.7 pounds per square inch??

The key is relative forces.
Again, like I said, the key principle at the pump is that there is a lower pressure outside than inside, so molecules expand in that direction. To try to get all the molecules out, you'd need zero pressure outside. How do you intend to do that? It's a bootstrap problem: to get a perfect vacuum, you'd need a perfect vacuum.
And you'd still be stuck with one molecule that's half-in, half-out because there'd be nothing to push it wholly through the hole.

I am not interesting in getting a perfect vacuum.   I am asking why a stronger pump is required to reduce the pressure in a larger container

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

That was claimed 10 pages ago.

I am wanting to know what mechanism is responsible for requiring a more powerful pump to reduce the pressure in a larger container.

>>the key principle at the pump is that there is a lower pressure outside than inside



The sceptimatic model is supposed to apply to real systems.

A pump is required because the pressure outside is greater than inside.   The pump has to create a higher pressure by containing a smaller amount of gas within the pump and then compressing the gas by forcing it out against the small  14.7 pounds per square inch pressure.

A rotary vane pump of the following design can produce 0.001bar

Low pressure is created to allow the gas to enter the pump and then high pressure is created so the air can flow out of the pump.



Your text:

>>the key principle at the pump is that there is a lower pressure outside than inside

Must be rewritten as:

the key principle at the pump is that there is a lower pressure inside the pump than outside in the container.

Evidently my wording is causing 'you' and sceptimatic huge problems and we are just going around in circles, where you are pretending you cannot understand what i am asking you,  or what I am asking is not relevant, or you need more contextual information to answer, and if you avoid dealing with what I am asking you to consider while playing silly word games with me as you are trying to do,  we will be here for thousands of pages.

Scepti doesnt understand a solitary thing about how our world functions or holds together. It is one thing to have an abysmal understanding of basic science as that is sadly, more common than you'd wish for. BUT it is a different thing to believe something at complete odds to the observable world and claim that is true instead.

That is several magnitudes of sadness.

I am not interesting in getting a perfect vacuum.   I am asking why a stronger pump is required to reduce the pressure in a larger container

You should be, considering it's related to some of the questions you've asked.

Evidently my wording is causing 'you' and sceptimatic huge problems and we are just going around in circles, where you are pretending you cannot understand what i am asking you,  or what I am asking is not relevant, or you need more contextual information to answer, and if you avoid dealing with what I am asking you to consider while playing silly word games with me as you are trying to do,  we will be here for thousands of pages.

I'm not playing word games. Only tiny parts of your post even mentioned comparative sizes, and you gave no indication everything you said was meant to be related to that issue. if two separate people misunderstand you, why do you automatically assume the problem has to be with them?

In answer though, the first thing I'd say is to focus of the meat of the model, rather than the phrasing. I'll admit, to be honest, I think denpressure is a bit of a misnomer as it's related more to energy and volume-displacement than the surface-area based kind of pressure most people think of.
Anyway, focus on what's already established:

At a moment in time, you have a pump containing a low pressure, and a chamber containing a higher pressure. In that instant, like in every instant, all molecules in the chamber are trying to expand. This pushes the outer layer of molecules into the pump.
It's common sense, though, that this movement will be muted the further away from the pump you get. Keep the pump's size fixed, make the chamber grow, the pump will only have a significant effect on a fixed area of the chamber, and the larger the chamber gets, the less significant this area will be.
Thinking in terms of energy, the pump will have to be left going a lot longer, so more of the potential energy in the molecules would have to be released, and more would have to be forced through the exhaust (and that I expect is the tricky part: forcing molecules to compress themselves and go back out into the pressure outside). A weaker pump would have a much harder time to do the last step, as it'd contain a lower pressure. You'd need a pump strong enough to do that consistently, and for quite an amount of time in the case of a larger chamber. A weaker pump might fail to properly expel the exhaust, and the cumulative effect of that would be greater if the pump has to go as long as it does in a large chamber. (Indeed, I think Scepti might say all the exhaust is never expelled; there'll always be a few molecules extra).
That seems to be what he's saying. He did refer to dealing with the evacuated molecules being pushed back inside.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 01, 2016, 11:46:59 PM

I am not interesting in getting a perfect vacuum.   I am asking why a stronger pump is required to reduce the pressure in a larger container

You should be, considering it's related to some of the questions you've asked.

Quote

Evidently my wording is causing 'you' and sceptimatic huge problems and we are just going around in circles, where you are pretending you cannot understand what i am asking you,  or what I am asking is not relevant, or you need more contextual information to answer, and if you avoid dealing with what I am asking you to consider while playing silly word games with me as you are trying to do,  we will be here for thousands of pages.

I'm not playing word games. Only tiny parts of your post even mentioned comparative sizes, and you gave no indication everything you said was meant to be related to that issue. if two separate people misunderstand you, why do you automatically assume the problem has to be with them?

In answer though, the first thing I'd say is to focus of the meat of the model, rather than the phrasing. I'll admit, to be honest, I think denpressure is a bit of a misnomer as it's related more to energy and volume-displacement than the surface-area based kind of pressure most people think of.
Anyway, focus on what's already established:

At a moment in time, you have a pump containing a low pressure, and a chamber containing a higher pressure. In that instant, like in every instant, all molecules in the chamber are trying to expand. This pushes the outer layer of molecules into the pump.
It's common sense, though, that this movement will be muted the further away from the pump you get. Keep the pump's size fixed, make the chamber grow, the pump will only have a significant effect on a fixed area of the chamber, and the larger the chamber gets, the less significant this area will be.
Thinking in terms of energy, the pump will have to be left going a lot longer, so more of the potential energy in the molecules would have to be released, and more would have to be forced through the exhaust (and that I expect is the tricky part: forcing molecules to compress themselves and go back out into the pressure outside). A weaker pump would have a much harder time to do the last step, as it'd contain a lower pressure. You'd need a pump strong enough to do that consistently, and for quite an amount of time in the case of a larger chamber. A weaker pump might fail to properly expel the exhaust, and the cumulative effect of that would be greater if the pump has to go as long as it does in a large chamber. (Indeed, I think Scepti might say all the exhaust is never expelled; there'll always be a few molecules extra).
That seems to be what he's saying. He did refer to dealing with the evacuated molecules being pushed back inside.

No laboratory on Earth can create a perfect vacuum.    A fairly cheap small pump can create 0.001Bar.     Once the pressure is very low the pump simply brings in as much material as it attempts to remove.   That is true for large pumps or small pumps.

That is all you need to know.

If there are no leaks in the larger container why is a larger pump needed to eventually create 0.001Bar??

Yes it has to run longer.  Big deal.

>>(and that I expect is the tricky part: forcing molecules to compress themselves and go back out into the pressure outside). A weaker pump would have a much harder time to do the last step, as it'd contain a lower pressure.

There is something you are not understanding.

If the weak pump can create a 'vacuum' of 0.001 bar in a milk bottle, then it can also create a 'vacuum' of 0.001 bar in a huge 1000m3 pressure vessel if there are no leaks.

There is absolutely nothing in what you have told me to account for a requirement of huge pumps to pump out huge rooms.

Where importantly I am wondering:

1.  why it is claimed brian cox is an actor?  where

2. sceptimatic has told me large chambers have 'more atmospheric pressure' and he has told me

3. larger chambers mean the pump has to work harder to avoid pressure reversing back into the larger chamber.

The belief of 2. seems to have created the belief of 3 and of 1. 

If we could establish what created belief 2. 'Larger chambers have more atmospheric pressure' we could progress this conversation.

I specifically asked sceptimatic about that and very quickly he stopped talking to me.     You told me you could not understand what it was describing without knowing the context.   I have done my best to give you the context over very many pages of replies.

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure'?

You can't just ignore the answer to repeat the question. I can see why Scepti got bored with you. Seriously, if a FEer has better back-and-forth than you, maybe rethink your tactic.
This is about Scepti's model, not the mainstream one.

You can't just ignore the answer to repeat the question. I can see why Scepti got bored with you. Seriously, if a FEer has better back-and-forth than you, maybe rethink your tactic.
This is about Scepti's model, not the mainstream one.

Why are you defending (or at least explaining) a notion that was thought up by a flat earther? Do you believe this notion?

Why are you defending (or at least explaining) a notion that was thought up by a flat earther? Do you believe this notion?

No, but personally I think that if you're going to argue against a model, you should at least know what that model is. I don't see why that's so unusual.

Quote from: Omega on September 02, 2016, 03:25:36 AM

Why are you defending (or at least explaining) a notion that was thought up by a flat earther? Do you believe this notion?

No, but personally I think that if you're going to argue against a model, you should at least know what that model is. I don't see why that's so unusual.

I agree that would be a rational approach. But the 'model' seems to change when I ask questions about it. If the target is constantly moving, the discussion becomes pointless.

Quote from: Jane on September 01, 2016, 03:01:47 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 01, 2016, 02:41:44 PM

We are going in circles now.

You do not seem to have understood the reason for my questions and therefore your answers seem to be off on a tangent.

From my perspective I seem to have answered every question you've asked. Rather than expecting me to guess the motive behind your questions (?!) it might be far more easier, for both of us, if you simply explained why what I've said doesn't make sense, rather than repeating the same questions.

Omitting repeated questions, because all I can do on that count is give you the answer I've already given:

Quote

I can see your response applying to the standard physics model.    In the standard model a very small pump able to create a low pressure in a small container will eventually create the same low pressure in a very large container.   However the idea a small pump can depressurise a very large container causes a very big problem for sceptimatic but i have no idea why.  (larger containers have 'more atmospheric pressure')

The size of the pump wasn't relevant to the question you were asking. The guiding principle behind why more energy is needed to take out more molecules is the same regardless of the sizes of pump and chamber. If you wanted to ask about varying sizes then feel free to do so, I believe I gave an answer, but make it clear two questions are meant to be connected.

Quote

I am not understanding these answers.   In this model the pump cannot create a space between the pump and the molecules.     But you tell me the molecules cannot go thru the hole unless they are pushed and molecules always want to expand.   If they cannot go thru the hole the pump will carry on moving and it will create a space between the pump and the molecules which implies they can expand and there will be no gap.

They do go through the hole, because they are pushed. How many permutations of this do I need to give before you acknowledge what I explicitly state? "The push from the inner molecules is always going to happen, because it is always happening." And again, they do go through the hole thanks to expansion, it just won't be the case that the whole molecule goes through the hole, because there's nothing to push it from its original location.
The inner molecules expanding pushes the molecules around them. A lack of force in one direction allows expansion in that direction, for all molecules.
Seriously, are you reading a word I'm saying? I can understand finding some of it unclear, but these are things explicitly stated, that you seem to be claiming the opposite of.

Quote

I cannot see anything in this model to justify the idea brian cox is an actor.    You tell me pumps need more power when fewer molecules remain but what is the mechanism to cause the pump to need infinite power??   How can the molecules interfer with the pump when there is only a small pressure the pump is working against of 14.7 pounds per square inch??

The key is relative forces.
Again, like I said, the key principle at the pump is that there is a lower pressure outside than inside, so molecules expand in that direction. To try to get all the molecules out, you'd need zero pressure outside. How do you intend to do that? It's a bootstrap problem: to get a perfect vacuum, you'd need a perfect vacuum.
And you'd still be stuck with one molecule that's half-in, half-out because there'd be nothing to push it wholly through the hole.

I am not interesting in getting a perfect vacuum.   I am asking why a stronger pump is required to reduce the pressure in a larger container

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 02:36:44 AM

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

That was claimed 10 pages ago.

I am wanting to know what mechanism is responsible for requiring a more powerful pump to reduce the pressure in a larger container.

>>the key principle at the pump is that there is a lower pressure outside than inside



The sceptimatic model is supposed to apply to real systems.

A pump is required because the pressure outside is greater than inside.   The pump has to create a higher pressure by containing a smaller amount of gas within the pump and then compressing the gas by forcing it out against the small  14.7 pounds per square inch pressure.

A rotary vane pump of the following design can produce 0.001bar

Low pressure is created to allow the gas to enter the pump and then high pressure is created so the air can flow out of the pump.



Your text:

>>the key principle at the pump is that there is a lower pressure outside than inside

Must be rewritten as:

the key principle at the pump is that there is a lower pressure inside the pump than outside in the container.

Evidently my wording is causing 'you' and sceptimatic huge problems and we are just going around in circles, where you are pretending you cannot understand what i am asking you,  or what I am asking is not relevant, or you need more contextual information to answer, and if you avoid dealing with what I am asking you to consider while playing silly word games with me as you are trying to do,  we will be here for thousands of pages.

I said UPON the chamber, not in the chamber.
Your mind is so set of trying to ridicule it that it scuppers your chances of understanding it.
That's why you're hardly worth dealing with. You act like a prick.

I agree that would be a rational approach. But the 'model' seems to change when I ask questions about it. If the target is constantly moving, the discussion becomes pointless.

Haven't seen too much of that. Easiest approach would be to try to see how the two answers could be reconciled, if you got them from the same answer. Some FEers are trolls, but the rest often have at least a consistent model, to some extent. They've had to answer the same questions for a while, after all.

Scepti doesnt understand a solitary thing about how our world functions or holds together. It is one thing to have an abysmal understanding of basic science as that is sadly, more common than you'd wish for. BUT it is a different thing to believe something at complete odds to the observable world and claim that is true instead.

That is several magnitudes of sadness.

In your mind I understand nothing. I'm a retard. I'm devoid of actually coherent speech or incapable of fitting in with normal everyday society.
In your mind I'm as low as can be in the intelligence stakes and tantamount to having the functional abilities of a newborn baby.
I understand exactly what you people try to portray and what you generally think.
Guess what?
It's been said so many times that it's almost pleasant to be insulted from people like you. The reason why it's almost pleasant is the very fact that I view people like you are the worlds most gullible/naive people. So gullible and naive that it makes me actually scratch my head as to how SUPPOSEDLY intelligent so called scientific people like you people claim to be, can actually not see clear bullshit in the models handed to you on a big hefty plate.

I then see you people going on about star trek and all kinds of sci-fi like it, where you people treat is as actual real life. I stop scratching my head at this stage and accept that rationality is not in your main psyche.

So every time you hit on me with your silly attempts at ridicule, just picture me laughing at you and your extreme gullibility. 

Quote from: Jane on September 02, 2016, 03:27:40 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 02, 2016, 03:25:36 AM

Why are you defending (or at least explaining) a notion that was thought up by a flat earther? Do you believe this notion?

No, but personally I think that if you're going to argue against a model, you should at least know what that model is. I don't see why that's so unusual.

I agree that would be a rational approach. But the 'model' seems to change when I ask questions about it. If the target is constantly moving, the discussion becomes pointless.

The model doesn't change.. It's you people that try to put your own spin on it without having a clue what you are actually doing.
From that point on you set yourselves back.
The reason why most of you won't grasp it is because you're far too hell bent on trying to keep your own indoctrinated bullshit alive.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 02:36:44 AM

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

I said UPON the chamber, not in the chamber.

Word games are not going to help you here.

Why is a stronger pump required when the chamber is bigger??

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' in the sentence 'larger containers have more atmospheric pressure'?

Why are you claiming brian cox is an actor when there is nothing in your model to support that idea?

You can't just ignore the answer to repeat the question. I can see why Scepti got bored with you. Seriously, if a FEer has better back-and-forth than you, maybe rethink your tactic.
This is about Scepti's model, not the mainstream one.

This is about a reality that does not fit the existing one which is not allowed to be questioned without a troll  like you claiming I am spamming the forum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 03:35:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 02:36:44 AM

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

I said UPON the chamber, not in the chamber.

Word games are not going to help you here.

Why is a stronger pump required when the chamber is bigger??

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' in the sentence 'larger containers have more atmospheric pressure'?

Why are you claiming brian cox is an actor when there is nothing in your model to support that idea?

If you remember a while back, I was going to explain it all by using water as an explanation but you refused it, so don't harp on to me about word games not helping me. You don't help yourself because you're trying to act like some kind of smug professor type and playing word games yourself.

SO here's the deal. Either start thinking rationally or just carry on playing your silly games. It's up to you and I don't really give a eff either way.

Quote from: Jane on September 02, 2016, 03:11:56 AM

You can't just ignore the answer to repeat the question. I can see why Scepti got bored with you. Seriously, if a FEer has better back-and-forth than you, maybe rethink your tactic.
This is about Scepti's model, not the mainstream one.

This is about a reality that does not fit the existing one which is not allowed to be questioned without a troll  like you claiming I am spamming the forum.

Of course it doesn't fit into the existing one. The existing one is the one that you were handed on a plate.
This one requires an alternative look at how it matches a reality that we can really basically perceive.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 03:52:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 03:35:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 02:36:44 AM

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

I said UPON the chamber, not in the chamber.

Word games are not going to help you here.

Why is a stronger pump required when the chamber is bigger??

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' in the sentence 'larger containers have more atmospheric pressure'?

Why are you claiming brian cox is an actor when there is nothing in your model to support that idea?

If you remember a while back, I was going to explain it all by using water as an explanation but you refused it,

False.  You wanted to use water as an analogy for atmospheric pressure.

I replied you cannot use air as an analogy for atmospheric pressure so you cannot use water.

I included some explanations of the word analogy.

I gave you plenty of opportunity to continue the discussion.

I have spent 4 days trying to work out what you mean by 'more atmospheric pressure'

Demonstrably I am acting in good faith.   However as i have said several times now you cannot just squat down pull something from your arse and expect me or anybody else to be impressed by it.   It stinks so far.

Quote from: Jane on September 02, 2016, 03:11:56 AM

You can't just ignore the answer to repeat the question. I can see why Scepti got bored with you. Seriously, if a FEer has better back-and-forth than you, maybe rethink your tactic.
This is about Scepti's model, not the mainstream one.

This is about a reality that does not fit the existing one which is not allowed to be questioned without a troll  like you claiming I am spamming the forum.

Got defensive fast.
You outright ignored the answer you were given, and I know you had to have read it because you responded to the sentence directly before it. I've seen you, multiple times, either ignoring or claiming the opposite of what was explicitly stated. You're welcome to question, but there's no point in anyone answering when you routinely ignore the answers.

In your mind I understand nothing. I'm a retard. I'm devoid of actually coherent speech or incapable of fitting in with normal everyday society.
In your mind I'm as low as can be in the intelligence stakes and tantamount to having the functional abilities of a newborn baby.

Worth refocusing on this quote, because it explains a lot of the responses. if people assume you're incapable of any thought, they'll assume it's wrong: they'll stumble on a seeming contradiction or tricky area, and never go further, or repeat a question, and keep repeating that question assuming it's unanswerable.
I think the world's round, but I also think that point of view is pretty secure, so there's no need to resort to fallacies to defend it.
It just doesn't make sense to assume no FE model can answer any question. By force of numbers, even if the models were developed by chance alone, there'll be some answers. Given that models were developed by people for an express purpose, maybe it's better to make the more realistic assumption that they weren't made by total incompetents and are indeed consistent and provide (at least partial) answers. Adopting the mindset where you try to figure out the models, rather than assuming from the get-go they're hopeless, does change things a lot. It doesn't preclude them not working, but surely you should at least try to puzzle it out before declaring it's broken?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 04:04:15 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 03:52:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 03:35:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 02:36:44 AM

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

I said UPON the chamber, not in the chamber.

Word games are not going to help you here.

Why is a stronger pump required when the chamber is bigger??

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' in the sentence 'larger containers have more atmospheric pressure'?

Why are you claiming brian cox is an actor when there is nothing in your model to support that idea?

If you remember a while back, I was going to explain it all by using water as an explanation but you refused it,

False.  You wanted to use water as an analogy for atmospheric pressure.

I replied you cannot use air as an analogy for atmospheric pressure so you cannot use water.

I included some explanations of the word analogy.

I gave you plenty of opportunity to continue the discussion.

I have spent 4 days trying to work out what you mean by 'more atmospheric pressure'

Demonstrably I am acting in good faith.   However as i have said several times now you cannot just squat down pull something from your arse and expect me or anybody else to be impressed by it.   It stinks so far.

It's actually quite scary how you've not took anything in at all, or you're just a troll yourself which would make sense.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 04:03:14 AM

Quote from: Jane on September 02, 2016, 03:11:56 AM

You can't just ignore the answer to repeat the question. I can see why Scepti got bored with you. Seriously, if a FEer has better back-and-forth than you, maybe rethink your tactic.
This is about Scepti's model, not the mainstream one.

This is about a reality that does not fit the existing one which is not allowed to be questioned without a troll  like you claiming I am spamming the forum.

Got defensive fast.
You outright ignored the answer you were given, and I know you had to have read it because you responded to the sentence directly before it. I've seen you, multiple times, either ignoring or claiming the opposite of what was explicitly stated. You're welcome to question, but there's no point in anyone answering when you routinely ignore the answers.

Very funny. Not.

Why do i need to discuss how it is impossible to create a vacuum on earth??    How does my desire to avoid that invalidate my argument or make me comparable to the most stupid people on Earth??   

I am not interested in creating something that is impossible to create on Earth.      I am talking about a low pressure such as for example 0.001bar which can be created by a small relatively inexpensive 'vacuum' pump.

No vacuum is possible on Earth.  The ridiculous claim has been made brian cox is an actor because he was filmed at the NASA very large low pressure facility where the stupid claim has been made massively large pumps are required to create anything close to a vacuum in a large chamber and equally ridiculously it has been claimed if a large pump is connected to a small container the small container will be destroyed.

So far it seems it is not possible to know why 14.7 pounds per square inch can create so many monumental technical problems for humans that even the resources of NASA cannot manage to work with such a puny amount of force.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 04:11:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 04:04:15 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 03:52:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 03:35:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 02:36:44 AM

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

I said UPON the chamber, not in the chamber.

Word games are not going to help you here.

Why is a stronger pump required when the chamber is bigger??

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' in the sentence 'larger containers have more atmospheric pressure'?

Why are you claiming brian cox is an actor when there is nothing in your model to support that idea?

If you remember a while back, I was going to explain it all by using water as an explanation but you refused it,

False.  You wanted to use water as an analogy for atmospheric pressure.

I replied you cannot use air as an analogy for atmospheric pressure so you cannot use water.

I included some explanations of the word analogy.

I gave you plenty of opportunity to continue the discussion.

I have spent 4 days trying to work out what you mean by 'more atmospheric pressure'

Demonstrably I am acting in good faith.   However as i have said several times now you cannot just squat down pull something from your arse and expect me or anybody else to be impressed by it.   It stinks so far.

It's actually quite scary how you've not took anything in at all, or you're just a troll yourself which would make sense.

Sceptimatic

If you are a genuine person you should be able to explain what is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' without resorting to trickery, deceit and all the other devices you are using.

Yes, nothing you say makes any sense to me at all.  I am however still here wading thru all of the excrement trying to work out what is going on.

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure'?

I require you to use the english language or give me language rules that we agree on.

Air cannot be used as an analogy for atmospheric pressure.   they are totally different things.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 04:20:46 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 04:11:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 04:04:15 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 03:52:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 03:35:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 02:36:44 AM

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

I said UPON the chamber, not in the chamber.

Word games are not going to help you here.

Why is a stronger pump required when the chamber is bigger??

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' in the sentence 'larger containers have more atmospheric pressure'?

Why are you claiming brian cox is an actor when there is nothing in your model to support that idea?

If you remember a while back, I was going to explain it all by using water as an explanation but you refused it,

False.  You wanted to use water as an analogy for atmospheric pressure.

I replied you cannot use air as an analogy for atmospheric pressure so you cannot use water.

I included some explanations of the word analogy.

I gave you plenty of opportunity to continue the discussion.

I have spent 4 days trying to work out what you mean by 'more atmospheric pressure'

Demonstrably I am acting in good faith.   However as i have said several times now you cannot just squat down pull something from your arse and expect me or anybody else to be impressed by it.   It stinks so far.

It's actually quite scary how you've not took anything in at all, or you're just a troll yourself which would make sense.

Sceptimatic

If you are a genuine person you should be able to explain what is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' without resorting to trickery, deceit and all the other devices you are using.

Yes, nothing you say makes any sense to me at all.  I am however still here wading thru all of the excrement trying to work out what is going on.

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure'?

I require you to use the english language or give me language rules that we agree on.

Air cannot be used as an analogy for atmospheric pressure.   they are totally different things.

First of all let me get something into your skull.
When we talk about the air we are talking about atmospheric pressure and if you cannot understand that then there's no point in your babbling on with your bullshit.

Why do i need to discuss how it is impossible to create a vacuum on earth??    How does my desire to avoid that invalidate my argument or make me comparable to the most stupid people on Earth??   

You don't need to discuss it. No one asked you to. It simply addressed one of the points you made, so I brought it up.

So far it seems it is not possible to know why 14.7 pounds per square inch can create so many monumental technical problems for humans that even the resources of NASA cannot manage to work with such a puny amount of force.

It's easily possible to know why, it's the relative forces that matter: the air in the chamber expands into one with a lower pressure. You've been told this multiple times now. The figures aren't particularly important, you'd need to create a pressure less than 14.7 psi, and then a pressure less than that result, and then...

The reason why most of you won't grasp it is because you're far too hell bent on trying to keep your own indoctrinated bullshit alive.

You are asking us to just take your word for it, that what you say is true.

What reason do I have to believe what you say?

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

You are one person with an idea. Why is your idea valid?

If I say 'I have a Ferrari' and you say 'I don't believe you' I can show you my Ferrari and the registration papers to prove it. If I cannot do that, what reason do you have to believe me?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 04:31:31 AM

Why do i need to discuss how it is impossible to create a vacuum on earth??    How does my desire to avoid that invalidate my argument or make me comparable to the most stupid people on Earth??   

You don't need to discuss it. No one asked you to. It simply addressed one of the points you made, so I brought it up.

Quote

So far it seems it is not possible to know why 14.7 pounds per square inch can create so many monumental technical problems for humans that even the resources of NASA cannot manage to work with such a puny amount of force.

It's easily possible to know why, it's the relative forces that matter: the air in the chamber expands into one with a lower pressure. You've been told this multiple times now. The figures aren't particularly important, you'd need to create a pressure less than 14.7 psi, and then a pressure less than that result, and then...

You keep bringing up this idea of extremely low pressures by continually telling me how difficult it is to get the last molecules from the pump.

Big deal.

I am wanting to know why a stronger pump is required to create a vacuum of 0.001bar in a larger chamber, where a little pump can easily create a vacuum of 0.001bar and you have said totally nothing to me that supports the idea large pumps are needed to create low pressures in  large chambers.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 04:36:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 04:20:46 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 04:11:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 04:04:15 AM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on September 02, 2016, 03:52:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 03:35:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 28, 2016, 02:36:44 AM

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

I said UPON the chamber, not in the chamber.

Word games are not going to help you here.

Why is a stronger pump required when the chamber is bigger??

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' in the sentence 'larger containers have more atmospheric pressure'?

Why are you claiming brian cox is an actor when there is nothing in your model to support that idea?

If you remember a while back, I was going to explain it all by using water as an explanation but you refused it,

False.  You wanted to use water as an analogy for atmospheric pressure.

I replied you cannot use air as an analogy for atmospheric pressure so you cannot use water.

I included some explanations of the word analogy.

I gave you plenty of opportunity to continue the discussion.

I have spent 4 days trying to work out what you mean by 'more atmospheric pressure'

Demonstrably I am acting in good faith.   However as i have said several times now you cannot just squat down pull something from your arse and expect me or anybody else to be impressed by it.   It stinks so far.

It's actually quite scary how you've not took anything in at all, or you're just a troll yourself which would make sense.

Sceptimatic

If you are a genuine person you should be able to explain what is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure' without resorting to trickery, deceit and all the other devices you are using.

Yes, nothing you say makes any sense to me at all.  I am however still here wading thru all of the excrement trying to work out what is going on.

What is meant by 'more atmospheric pressure'?

I require you to use the english language or give me language rules that we agree on.

Air cannot be used as an analogy for atmospheric pressure.   they are totally different things.

First of all let me get something into your skull.
When we talk about the air we are talking about atmospheric pressure and if you cannot understand that then there's no point in your babbling on with your bullshit.

Air is not atmospheric pressure and is nothing like atmospheric pressure 

Air cannot be an analogy for atmospheric pressure.

Atmospheric pressure, sometimes also called barometric pressure, is the pressure exerted by the weight of air in the atmosphere of Earth (or that of another planet). It is the weight of the air pushing down on the planet.

The atmospheric pressure is 1 atmosphere at sea level.

A gas in a closed container wants to expand. The molecules all move in random directions and the net force of that is pressure: it's molecules trying to move in random directions but bumping into the container and eachother.

The more gas you pump into a container, the less room the molecules have to move, the more the pressure builds up. The molecules have nowhere to go.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 02, 2016, 03:50:50 AM

The reason why most of you won't grasp it is because you're far too hell bent on trying to keep your own indoctrinated bullshit alive.

You are asking us to just take your word for it, that what you say is true.

What reason do I have to believe what you say?

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

You are one person with an idea. Why is your idea valid?

If I say 'I have a Ferrari' and you say 'I don't believe you' I can show you my Ferrari and the registration papers to prove it. If I cannot do that, what reason do you have to believe me?

I'm not asking you to believe anything. What you decide to believe is entirely your prerogative.
However, I have my model/hypothesis or whatever name anyone wants to bestow upon it.
I get asked about MY model and how certain things work within it. I firmly believe my model answers the reality to a lot of the gunk that's spewed by mainstream supposed scientists.

Denpressure is my take on reality.
What you or anyone else sticks to or decides alternate to it, is your choice.

The problem for anyone who wants to figure out how and why my model works is the fact that they oppose it before they even get the gist of it in any form.

They harp on about vacuums and oppose me and yet they aren't even sure of their own.
So get this into your head and keep it in your head. If you want to understand it all then move all other stuff to the side and only question what you know is worthy of your question.
Do not question anything if all you have to back you up is a copy and paste answer to what is already indoctrinated into the psyche of mainstream society, then pretend to know exactly how it all works, then just coming out with the same old stuff of, " your model does not fit reality."
Once you start doing this, you're a wasted piece of energy.