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

Scales placed in a vacuum show no change in weight.

Can you elaborate? Who says the scales are not affected by the vacuum?

Quote from: sokarul on November 27, 2018, 07:27:40 AM

Scales placed in a vacuum show no change in weight.

Can you elaborate? Who says the scales are not affected by the vacuum?

Sceptictank told me if I put a scale with a weight on it in a vacuum chamber the weight would drop by over half when the pressure dropped. I did 3 experiments. No drop in weight occurred. I can find the videos later if you want.

I think Sceppy also said the decrease in vacuum would affect the scale, effectively making the result unreliable and void.

OK, then he should not have used the word "density" for a completely different concept especially when "density" is still required with its conventional meaning.

it's an analogous concept. No worse than mathematicians using 'add' and 'multiply' to refer to operations on vectors and matrices, or working modulo a number, or any number of alternate sets where the operations aren't really the same. it's only confusing if you're not paying attention. Hell, just look at what the word 'atom' has historically referred to.

But since you raised the issue, the accepted rules of physics were not hypothesised but we're discovered by many painstaking experiments.
So a person is not free to simply simply hypothesise a "new physics" without performing similar experiments to justify his hypotheses.
If Sceppy fails to do this he cannot expect people to take his ideas seriously.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that that's what the model states. if you have objections focus on those, rather than complaining he uses 'density' to refer to the analogue of 'density.'

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 10:32:47 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 28, 2018, 09:30:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 10:02:59 AM

The ability of an object/matter to displace atmospheric pressure or pressure of molecules.

So then Lithium (1 m³ has a mass of 534 kg) has the same density as Osmium (1 m³ has a mass of 22,590 kg)?
Yes, I know, I'm not sufficiently open minded to let all my brains run out.

Then they don't have the same density. But you're entitled to accept they have.

Of course they don't have the same density but one cubic metre of each does displace exactly one cubic metre of air.

How do you know this?
Is it because they are both exactly 1 cubic metre and that's that, so they must displace the same amount of atmosphere?
What about 1 cubic metre of lead and 1 cubic metre of sponge?

At sea level that one cubic metre of air has a mass of 1.224 kg.

Ok but it doesn't help in this case for you to use it.

If you expect anybody to look sympathetically at your denpressure ideas you really should make an effort to used the accepted definitions for words.

I make plenty of effort but I do it my way and I do it as basic as is possible.
I also generally sidestep attempts by some posters to merely dismiss it rather than actually try to grasp it and also trying to confuse the issue for other posters and themselves, if genuine.

I think Sceppy also said the decrease in vacuum would affect the scale, effectively making the result unreliable and void.

Which of course is untrue.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 10:02:59 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 28, 2018, 09:12:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 02:27:06 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 28, 2018, 01:59:07 AM

Keep in mind that scepti uses a different definition of "density" to everyone else.  You might want to check what his current definition is however, as it's shifted about a bit over time.

It hasn't shifted. It's been explained differently but the premise stays the same.

OK, but could you give your current definition of density, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.

The ability of an object/matter to displace atmospheric pressure or pressure of molecules.

How would you measure this, and can you give some examples of the density of common objects and/or materials?

Simple man made scales in atmosphere or compressing equal sized objects said to be equally dense, to expel as much atmosphere in the porous structure in their minute state and collapsing that structure to literally show that two objects of the same size and believed identical density, is not a fact.

I think Sceppy also said the decrease in vacuum would affect the scale, effectively making the result unreliable and void.

Yep, I did.
I also told him to follow my instructions exactly and he refused to do so.

It might be the belgian blonde beer 'Affligem' but I didn't understand a single thing from what you just said.

It looks like a string of random words.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 29, 2018, 03:45:13 AM

OK, then he should not have used the word "density" for a completely different concept especially when "density" is still required with its conventional meaning.

it's an analogous concept. No worse than mathematicians using 'add' and 'multiply' to refer to operations on vectors and matrices, or working modulo a number, or any number of alternate sets where the operations aren't really the same. it's only confusing if you're not paying attention. Hell, just look at what the word 'atom' has historically referred to.

Quote

But since you raised the issue, the accepted rules of physics were not hypothesised but we're discovered by many painstaking experiments.
So a person is not free to simply simply hypothesise a "new physics" without performing similar experiments to justify his hypotheses.
If Sceppy fails to do this he cannot expect people to take his ideas seriously.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that that's what the model states. if you have objections focus on those, rather than complaining he uses 'density' to refer to the analogue of 'density.'

Well said. He tries to complicate things for himself.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 29, 2018, 06:32:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 10:02:59 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 28, 2018, 09:12:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2018, 02:27:06 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 28, 2018, 01:59:07 AM

Keep in mind that scepti uses a different definition of "density" to everyone else.  You might want to check what his current definition is however, as it's shifted about a bit over time.

It hasn't shifted. It's been explained differently but the premise stays the same.

OK, but could you give your current definition of density, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.

The ability of an object/matter to displace atmospheric pressure or pressure of molecules.

How would you measure this, and can you give some examples of the density of common objects and/or materials?

Simple man made scales in atmosphere

OK, so how would I go about measure the density of an object using man made scales  -could you carry out a measurement and give your results?  My man made scales use kilograms as a unit - is this what you use as a unit of density?

or compressing equal sized objects said to be equally dense, to expel as much atmosphere in the porous structure in their minute state and collapsing that structure to literally show that two objects of the same size and believed identical density, is not a fact.

I've honestly no idea what you are trying to say.

I agree wih the crab.
If you plan on using a widely common word with a secret meaning, best use a different word.
Danang has redefined pi and although his math is batsht crazy, hes nice enough not to confuse the well understood term.

Recommend you use a different word, maybe "displacity" is a good fit.

Ok den pressure "density" is the ability to displace the atmosplane but in the example of a 1m^3 block of lead vs cotton balls of same volume, the displaced air is the same.
So how does the scale know that lead is heavier?

2nd discussion note about longitudinal waves.
I didnt quite get an answer to a fan blowing on me makes me heavier.

If the sponges are behaving in this way, we have a whole field of software and mech engineers that can perform computational fluid dynamics.
What does that have to do with weight?

OK, so how would I go about measure the density of an object using man made scales  -could you carry out a measurement and give your results?  My man made scales use kilograms as a unit - is this what you use as a unit of density?

Use any measurement you want to use. Grams, ounces, pounds, kilo's. I could say something like, nuggets and grains and pulses or whatever to rename stuff but let's just keep to the normalities of what we are all conditioned to, for ease. Is that ok?

or compressing equal sized objects said to be equally dense, to expel as much atmosphere in the porous structure in their minute state and collapsing that structure to literally show that two objects of the same size and believed identical density, is not a fact.

I've honestly no idea what you are trying to say.

Try and grasp it and tell me what you think it might be saying.

I agree wih the crab.
If you plan on using a widely common word with a secret meaning, best use a different word.
Danang has redefined pi and although his math is batsht crazy, hes nice enough not to confuse the well understood term.

Recommend you use a different word, maybe "displacity" is a good fit.

Ok den pressure "density" is the ability to displace the atmosplane but in the example of a 1m^3 block of lead vs cotton balls of same volume, the displaced air is the same.
So how does the scale know that lead is heavier?

The displaced air is not the same.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2018, 10:00:28 AM

I agree wih the crab.
If you plan on using a widely common word with a secret meaning, best use a different word.
Danang has redefined pi and although his math is batsht crazy, hes nice enough not to confuse the well understood term.

Recommend you use a different word, maybe "displacity" is a good fit.

Ok den pressure "density" is the ability to displace the atmosplane but in the example of a 1m^3 block of lead vs cotton balls of same volume, the displaced air is the same.
So how does the scale know that lead is heavier?

The displaced air is not the same.

I'm kind of guessing here, but in this example the level of displaced air is different due to the porosity of lead versus cotton balls?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2018, 12:19:47 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2018, 10:00:28 AM

I agree wih the crab.
If you plan on using a widely common word with a secret meaning, best use a different word.
Danang has redefined pi and although his math is batsht crazy, hes nice enough not to confuse the well understood term.

Recommend you use a different word, maybe "displacity" is a good fit.

Ok den pressure "density" is the ability to displace the atmosplane but in the example of a 1m^3 block of lead vs cotton balls of same volume, the displaced air is the same.
So how does the scale know that lead is heavier?

The displaced air is not the same.

I'm kind of guessing here, but in this example the level of displaced air is different due to the porosity of lead versus cotton balls?

Opposite way round.

Dafuq?
Ok buddy.
A block 1m^3 be it lead cotton or horse shit  is still a 1m^3 block.
The amount of air it displaces is 1m^3.

Now you re also secretly redefining volume?

Maybe write down your definitions or ref me to a past post and then we can start speaking same language.

Quote from: Stash on November 29, 2018, 01:45:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2018, 12:19:47 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2018, 10:00:28 AM

I agree wih the crab.
If you plan on using a widely common word with a secret meaning, best use a different word.
Danang has redefined pi and although his math is batsht crazy, hes nice enough not to confuse the well understood term.

Recommend you use a different word, maybe "displacity" is a good fit.

Ok den pressure "density" is the ability to displace the atmosplane but in the example of a 1m^3 block of lead vs cotton balls of same volume, the displaced air is the same.
So how does the scale know that lead is heavier?

The displaced air is not the same.

I'm kind of guessing here, but in this example the level of displaced air is different due to the porosity of lead versus cotton balls?

Opposite way round.

Perhaps poor sentence structure on my part. So more like:

Lead, volume X: displaces a lot of air due to it's very low porosity
Cotton Balls, same volume X: displaces less air due to it's high porosity

Dafuq?
Ok buddy.
A block 1m^3 be it lead cotton or horse shit  is still a 1m^3 block.
The amount of air it displaces is 1m^3.

Now you re also secretly redefining volume?

Maybe write down your definitions or ref me to a past post and then we can start speaking same language.

Here's an old list I found:

"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"weight",....The amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"speed",....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction.
"velocity",..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"acceleration",.....The continuous build up of movement.
 "force",..... Any energy push in any direction
"inertia",..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
"pressure",.....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
"pressure gradient",........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"power",....  Energy push.
"energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.

Aaaah ok...

So lets try this.
A sealed pressure vessel containing a 1m^3 block of lead weighed against a sealed pressure vessel containing a porous 1m^3 block of cotton.
Vacuum pump all the air out.

By scepts theory, they would weigh the same?
Im sure somewhere in thread 2tru69 this has been pointed out.
And to make life easier, if you already agreed upon a definition you dont have to restate it.

And pressure does differ than force in the grand scheme of things.

Vibration is a thing oscillating and friction is two surfaces resisting rubbing.   Definitely not the same thing.

Good luck buddy.
Have you met danang?
He can help you workr out the math and real life experiment.

Vacuum pump all the air out.

That's the hard part. Check out what'd actually be required to do that under Scepti's model. the air isn't made of freefloating molecules whizzing around, but rather balls that expand to fill all available space.

Yes   defying physics is hard...

But not hard If the ball expanded to such a size we could see.

But in the real world pv= nrt.
Where if you vacuumed out all but one moecule of air, it would "occupy" the volume of the vessel.
But the pressure would be so low to consider it zero.

And pretty sure grade nine science proved air molecules to be molecules when you weighed oxidized metals.

But not hard If the ball expanded to such a size we could see.

Hmm. Almost like they wouldn't expand to such a size and so the vacuum tube is far from empty.

And pretty sure grade nine science proved air molecules to be molecules when you weighed oxidized metals.

Sorry, do you think chemical reactions don't happen?

Nowhere did he claim chemical reactions don’t happen.

She said air isnt made of molecules but are expanding balls...

Jane made the claim you don’t believe in chemical reactions

Jane made the claim you don’t believe in chemical reactions

Oh i think i misread...
I believe in chem reactions and that oxygeb can be pulled out of the air and added onto metals, making them heavier.

Does jane believe air is made of molecules or spaceballs?
Or is she once again presenting a bunked theory as fact?

Quote from: sokarul on November 29, 2018, 06:14:05 PM

Jane made the claim you don’t believe in chemical reactions

Oh i think i misread...
I believe in chem reactions and that oxygeb can be pulled out of the air and added onto metals, making them heavier.

Does jane believe air is made of molecules or spaceballs?
Or is she once again presenting a bunked theory as fact?

Jane's telling you how I'm presenting the analogy of my theory.
Trying to get clever and skewing it will not help you.

Nowhere did he claim chemical reactions don’t happen.

Please, please tell me how you think the weight of oxidised metals refuting denpressure could possibly work if not for the claim that chemical reactions don't happen under denpressure.