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

Yes   defying physics is hard...

You mean defying what we're told is real physics.

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

It's not exactly a ball expanding to one side.
This is where the gobstopper mindset has to come to the fore. It's not just as basic as an expanding sponge ball or one bubble or whatever.
The issue here is in trying to get people to understand that absolute basics of the basics by using analogies and such in order for a small piece of a jigsaw can show a bit of a bigger picture.

Most people simply go into denial mode of my theory and skew it all for themselves. The only issue is in whether they're doing it deliberately or accidentally.

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.

You need to understand what you mean by vacuuming out.
Tell me how you vacuum out matter from a container.
Give me your process as to how that's possible and I'll show you my process.
It's all about wiping away magic and replacing it with potential reality.

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

Using the grade this and that school stuff shows me where you're going.
If you're not interested then just stay away from the topic and carry on with your mindset.

If you are then understand that you have to try and see it from my side whether you believe it or not.
Jane doesn't believe my side but she's took the time to understand what I'm getting at.

Well it is kind of hard when youre not speaking same language...
You havent even addressed the volume issue.

Try me.
Im here for a discussion.
If i was to make fun i would do it outright.

Theres no magic in pumping air out of a pressure vessel.
Air molecules are free to bounce around the container.
Theres a one way valve.
Using a pump the molecules are sucked out.
Air cant go back in because of one way valve.


But "basics and basics".
You claim a lot.
Go read danangs posts.
Very similar way of talking.

If we take Themightykabool's thought experiment:

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?

Questions (and this is really basic b/c so am I):

In your theory can a near, almost zero vacuum be created inside of a container of sorts? I'm kind of thinking no. (And if no, why not? I don't quite follow the explanations)

But since I have no line of questioning if my thought is correct, I'll go with the alternative. Let's say the answer is yes, a near zero vacuum vessel could be created.

Using Themightykabool's experiment, would the two boxes weigh the same?

Well it is kind of hard when youre not speaking same language...
You havent even addressed the volume issue.

Try me.
Im here for a discussion.
If i was to make fun i would do it outright.

Theres no magic in pumping air out of a pressure vessel.
Air molecules are free to bounce around the container.
Theres a one way valve.
Using a pump the molecules are sucked out.
Air cant go back in because of one way valve.

Tell me how air is "sucked" out.
Have a think about this.
You have what appears to be an empty glass  container that is open. You know that the container is full of the same stuff outside of it, as in atmosphere.
You place a stopper in the container and now you have a separation of the atmosphere with a pressure inside that is basically trapped as well as all the rest of the atmosphere around the outside of it.
The pressure is basically equalised.

Ok, now here's where the suck part needs thinking about.
You need to get the atmosphere out of that glass container and by your thinking, you suck. But how do you suck from it?
It's easy to say "a pump" but a pump does not suck. You could say " use a bicycle pump" and press the handle right down then draw it back up and supposedly suck out the atmosphere from the jar through some kind of valve that closes as you supposedly suck.

But are you sucking anything out?
The answer is, absolutely not.

It just requires thought.
Think very carefully on what I'm about to say.

If you were to place a bicycle pump onto the container and drew back the handle you would be expelling the atmosphere that is already inside the bicycle pump tube and creating a low pressure as you draw it back, even in the minutest movement.
This is where the molecules of the trapped atmosphere inside the container can start to expand out of their general compressed normal atmospheric pressure mode. They will expand to fill in that lower pressure you created in that tube.
You are doing absolutely nothing to the container itself in sucking anything out. It's happening naturally in expansion.

Now here's the key.
Once you keep drawing the pump, there will become a point where the molecules have expanded to a max inside that container.
The container will still be full of atmosphere, only that atmosphere will now be much less molecules and also more expanded.
The thing is they cannot expand anymore into the tube because the low pressure created in that tube is now also equalised and there nothing can expand into it.
End result? You simply have a low pressure container that is far from a vacuum but of sufficient low pressure as to be unable to agitate by expansion, leaving what we basically measure as a so called Vacuum.

Seriously think about this because it will massively help you and anyone else into solving a lot of stuff that we've been schooled into.

But "basics and basics".
You claim a lot.
Go read danangs posts.
Very similar way of talking.

If he wants to join in then he's welcome, as is anyone. But do it for the right reasons.

If we take Themightykabool's thought experiment:

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2018, 03:42:36 PM

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?

Questions (and this is really basic b/c so am I):

In your theory can a near, almost zero vacuum be created inside of a container of sorts? I'm kind of thinking no. (And if no, why not? I don't quite follow the explanations)

But since I have no line of questioning if my thought is correct, I'll go with the alternative. Let's say the answer is yes, a near zero vacuum vessel could be created.

Using Themightykabool's experiment, would the two boxes weigh the same?

The problem with the word "weight" is that it's a man made measurement and is generally made to measure dense mass pushing into atmospheric pressure in my theory.

Scales are also doing exactly the same in their natural state of being an object pushing into the atmosphere but can be set to zero to accept (for instance) a 1 cubic foot sponge or a 1 cubic foot of lead.

By eye they're both the same and if there were no scales you could ask someone to take a guess which one would feel heavier. Just by look you would pick the lead.
Asked why you would think this, I would guess that most would say " because the other block has lots of holes in it and the lead one looks solid by eye."
Fair enough answer but what does it tell anyone?

It should tell a thinker that the sponge block is already so saturated in atmosphere throughout as to leave very little dense mass to push against that atmosphere and create that push back for a meaningful reading on the scale plate.
To prove it all anyone would need to do is to squash the sponge block with as much force as they can and get an insight into how small that 1 cubic foot of it can be compressed down to.
What's the guess?
Down to 1 cubic cm if really pressured...or less?
That's what's really displacing the atmosphere.
As for the lead. Try compressing that from a cubic foot.
How much more could you compress it in block form?

Very little with the tools we have but even the minutest of the minute still has to expel something from the lead. It still collapses a porous structure, only this time our eyes cannot see it...but that's trapped atmosphere.
The thing is it's likely never to make any meaningful change to a scale plate reading.

Now here's the key.
Once you keep drawing the pump, there will become a point where the molecules have expanded to a max inside that container.
The container will still be full of atmosphere, only that atmosphere will now be much less molecules and also more expanded.
The thing is they cannot expand anymore into the tube because the low pressure created in that tube is now also equalised and there nothing can expand into it.
End result? You simply have a low pressure container that is far from a vacuum but of sufficient low pressure as to be unable to agitate by expansion, leaving what we basically measure as a so called Vacuum.

Seriously think about this because it will massively help you and anyone else into solving a lot of stuff that we've been schooled into.

I'm trying, and understandably, a lot of what you are conveying is above my intellectual pay grade. But I thinks it helps your theory to bring it down to my level.

So if I'm understanding, "The thing is they cannot expand anymore into the tube because the low pressure created in that tube is now also equalised and there nothing can expand into it."

But let's say my device for seemingly attempting to create a vacuum vessel is not a pump. But a vaccuum itself, constantly sucking the air/atmosphere out of the vessel until my measuring device determines that I am near zero (I know we get into how devices determine what "zero" is and such, manmade and all, but park that for a moment). Let's say we are near zero and cap it off.

The two boxes/vessels, near zero vacuum (as currently defined), one with 1 cubic foot sponge and one with 1 cubic foot of lead. Do they weigh, yes, on man made scales as we have commonly defined weights and measurements, the same?

To piggy back off stash, and to not use any more confusing mis-terms, the two vessels are placed on a teeter totter.
Whih side is going to be down?

Pumps are real things.
Pressure vessels are real things.
It doesnt require being tricked by school to imagine their existence.

Pumps are real things.
Pressure vessels are real things.
It doesnt require being tricked by school to imagine their existence.

No one is saying they're not real, just pointing out that they're going to have to function pretty differently with a different model of molecules.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 30, 2018, 01:54:44 AM

Pumps are real things.
Pressure vessels are real things.
It doesnt require being tricked by school to imagine their existence.

No one is saying they're not real, just pointing out that they're going to have to function pretty differently with a different model of molecules.

Doesn't the question become, "How different and what is the model that causes the difference and can that model be explained and perhaps examined?"  And I'm more than willing to accept that there is a different molecular model than standard, but that is also a synaptic leap that is of canyon proportions and needs, well bridging.

The question remains, under current measurement methodologies (The 'out' is they don't apply) do the boxes weigh the same?

If not, what is the contrary model that explains this?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 29, 2018, 08:54:11 AM

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?

OK, so if I say, put a lump of wood on some scales and it read 2kg I could say "the density of that wood is 2kg?".  If that's the case, what is the difference between density and weight?

I'm trying, and understandably, a lot of what you are conveying is above my intellectual pay grade. But I thinks it helps your theory to bring it down to my level.

So if I'm understanding, "The thing is they cannot expand anymore into the tube because the low pressure created in that tube is now also equalised and there nothing can expand into it."

But let's say my device for seemingly attempting to create a vacuum vessel is not a pump. But a vaccuum itself, constantly sucking the air/atmosphere out of the vessel until my measuring device determines that I am near zero (I know we get into how devices determine what "zero" is and such, manmade and all, but park that for a moment). Let's say we are near zero and cap it off.

The two boxes/vessels, near zero vacuum (as currently defined), one with 1 cubic foot sponge and one with 1 cubic foot of lead. Do they weigh, yes, on man made scales as we have commonly defined weights and measurements, the same?

No they don't weigh the same because they are not the same density.
They may look it by eye and by area but they are not by compaction.

To piggy back off stash, and to not use any more confusing mis-terms, the two vessels are placed on a teeter totter.
Whih side is going to be down?

It depends on the vessels.

Pumps are real things.

Course they are but it's how people believe they work, is the key.

Pressure vessels are real things.

Yep.

It doesnt require being tricked by school to imagine their existence.

It's not about their existence, it's about what they do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2018, 12:16:25 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 29, 2018, 08:54:11 AM

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?

OK, so if I say, put a lump of wood on some scales and it read 2kg I could say "the density of that wood is 2kg?".  If that's the case, what is the difference between density and weight?

More like, if you put a lump of wood on a scale and it measures 2kg you could say the lump of wood displaces 2kg of atmosphere by scale measurement.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 30, 2018, 02:57:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2018, 12:16:25 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 29, 2018, 08:54:11 AM

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?

OK, so if I say, put a lump of wood on some scales and it read 2kg I could say "the density of that wood is 2kg?".  If that's the case, what is the difference between density and weight?

More like, if you put a lump of wood on a scale and it measures 2kg you could say the lump of wood displaces 2kg of atmosphere by scale measurement.

So, that is it's density then?  If it isn't, it sort of brings me back to my original question: how do we measure density?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2018, 04:58:13 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 30, 2018, 02:57:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2018, 12:16:25 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 29, 2018, 08:54:11 AM

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?

OK, so if I say, put a lump of wood on some scales and it read 2kg I could say "the density of that wood is 2kg?".  If that's the case, what is the difference between density and weight?

More like, if you put a lump of wood on a scale and it measures 2kg you could say the lump of wood displaces 2kg of atmosphere by scale measurement.

So, that is it's density then?  If it isn't, it sort of brings me back to my original question: how do we measure density?

You could say that.
It just mean altering what people know about scales.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 30, 2018, 02:57:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2018, 12:16:25 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 29, 2018, 08:54:11 AM

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?

OK, so if I say, put a lump of wood on some scales and it read 2kg I could say "the density of that wood is 2kg?".  If that's the case, what is the difference between density and weight?

More like, if you put a lump of wood on a scale and it measures 2kg you could say the lump of wood displaces 2kg of atmosphere by scale measurement.

What if the wood block was placed in a vacuumed pressure vessel 1m^3?
The air displaced would be 1m^3 regardless of if the wood block was inside or not.
Ok let ssay we have two vessels, both vacuumed out, 1has a wood block and other doesnt.
Sit them on a teeter totter.
Which side will be down?

What if the wood block was placed in a vacuumed pressure vessel 1m^3?
The air displaced would be 1m^3 regardless of if the wood block was inside or not.

Only if the block was non porous, otherwise it still holds atmosphere as part of it's internal structure...however small.
Go back to the sponge and the lead to see what I'm telling you.

Ok let ssay we have two vessels, both vacuumed out, 1has a wood block and other doesnt.
Sit them on a teeter totter.
Which side will be down?

Can you be a bit more clearer on this. I'm not grasping what you're getting at by using two chambers.

The teeter totter is used because you have a different definition of weight.
Negating definitions and just using this teeter as a comparative scale.

I'll redescribe.

You have two scuba tanks completely void of all air (regardless of how it was done).
In one there is placed a cup full of lead.
In other is a cup full of cotton balls.
Tanks are place on either side of teeter totter.
The tanks are sealed non porous since they are pressure vessels.
Which side would the teeter totter drop to?

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 30, 2018, 05:24:55 AM

What if the wood block was placed in a vacuumed pressure vessel 1m^3?
The air displaced would be 1m^3 regardless of if the wood block was inside or not.

Only if the block was non porous, otherwise it still holds atmosphere as part of it's internal structure...however small.
Go back to the sponge and the lead to see

Holds atmosphere?
Youre saying that in between the molecules and atoms are free floating air molecules?

Assume the vacuum pump has been run for an extensive period and has comepletly removed the air from the pressure vessel.

The teeter totter is used because you have a different definition of weight.
Negating definitions and just using this teeter as a comparative scale.

I'll redescribe.

You have two scuba tanks completely void of all air (regardless of how it was done).
In one there is placed a cup full of lead.
In other is a cup full of cotton balls.
Tanks are place on either side of teeter totter.
The tanks are sealed non porous since they are pressure vessels.
Which side would the teeter totter drop to?

Ahhh I see what you're getting at.
We are moving into buoyancy territory with this.
It's going to start getting a bit complicated but here goes.

The lead still takes up it's own dense mass of atmospheric pressure but it's transferred to the tank.
The other tank with cotton balls in still overcomes buoyancy, or equalisation from a push from above and the squeeze from the sides and also the attempts to squeeze those two tanks up.

I told you it'll start getting complicated. It's simple really if you can grasp what I'm trying to convey so stick with it.

Just remember that every object on Earth is being displacing atmosphere and porosity or lack of it is key to already taking up that portion of it, giving the object it's measured scale reading.

Adding it to a tank will only allow the tank to evacuate a bit more atmosphere due to having that mass within it, so it will evacuate more than the one with cotton balls in.
However, although more atmosphere has been evacuated from the cup of lead tank, its reading would be minimal in terms of losing some of that mass as a measurement.

In theory The cup of lead tank would have less atmosphere in it but more density due to that cup of lead.

This means it would easily drop to the floor leaving the tank of cotton balls up in the air.
Why?
Because the atmosphere pushing against those tanks is also squeezing them up but cannot do it due to the already dense mass placed inside which renders the see saw grounded on the lead side.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2018, 05:29:35 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 30, 2018, 05:24:55 AM

What if the wood block was placed in a vacuumed pressure vessel 1m^3?
The air displaced would be 1m^3 regardless of if the wood block was inside or not.

Only if the block was non porous, otherwise it still holds atmosphere as part of it's internal structure...however small.
Go back to the sponge and the lead to see

Holds atmosphere?
Youre saying that in between the molecules and atoms are free floating air molecules?

No molecules are free floating. They're all attached in almost infinite ways and shapes as they compress, expand, push into each other and always fill a potential void. Basically no free space and no free roaming of any matter.
It gets way way more complicated in this term so let's get the basics out of the way so people actually start to get the gist.

Assume the vacuum pump has been run for an extensive period and has comepletly removed the air from the pressure vessel.

You really need to read what I've been saying.
You can have a pump as big as a building against a car sized container and you will never evacuate all of the matter in it.
The best you will do is create a bigger push against atmospheric pressure (externally) to allow more expansion into it by molecules inside the chamber and then it will likely collapse in on itself and cease to become a chamber, at all.

We can rephrase, If any moleciles of air are left they cause neglible difference in wieght and pressure.
Of course im using the more commonly understood terms.

You seriously cant redefine words.
It makes no sense.
Probably why no one understands you.
Well  not the only reason...

Sorry but ill have to cut this thought experiment off because your theory is neither interesting.
I had fun with ua.
This is just bonkers right up there with Phew.

Air has mass.
Made up of molecules.
Its been proven and reproducable and repeatble experiemnt (not just "testable", jane)
There is a whole industry of pressure vessels for various applications.
Pressure vessels can be made strong enough to withstand a diffeeence of 1 atmosphere.

By your definition, the air displaced by the vessel, is the same volume, yet magically it will push down harder on the lead side.

Ive been reading your words but If im not comprehending your theory its because youre missuing common terms.
Make up your own word (phew) and stop confusing the sht out of everybody.

Sorry
You cant even articulate it clearly in a few sentences.
Ill assume you arent working on a phd and we wont being seeing you with a nobel prize anytime soon.

It’s best just to ignore sceptitank. Every time a good argument is brought against denpressure he just changes denpressure so the argument no long works.

Air has mass.

Everything has mass.

There is a whole industry of pressure vessels for various applications.
Pressure vessels can be made strong enough to withstand a diffeeence of 1 atmosphere.

Pressure vessels can be extremely strong. The issue is in how strong and how far measurements can go to understand how low a pressure can actually go.
Tell me something.
Why do pumps that allow for evacuation of vessels have ratings?
Tell me what happens when a pump becomes far too strong in pushing away atmosphere to allow further expansion of molecules from a vessel?
You see these things are all tied in and it's also my theory. I call the shots.

By your definition, the air displaced by the vessel, is the same volume, yet magically it will push down harder on the lead side.

You're missing the issue.
The lead itself is a massive object of displacement of atmosphere.
It is placed in the tank before the tank is allowed to evacuate. That is key.
It doesn't miraculously turn into a floating so called space object in some fictional vacuum.

Ive been reading your words but If im not comprehending your theory its because youre missuing common terms.

I use my terms, get used to them or don't.
I also use the terms we've all been coaxed into by mainstream schooling. It just a case of marrying up what's what and understanding that my theory is massively different to the one you adhere to.

Make up your own word (phew) and stop confusing the sht out of everybody.

Put some effort in and stop whining....or deck out and fail.

Sorry
You cant even articulate it clearly in a few sentences.

You're seriously saying that to me after what you're typing?
Attacking me will gain you nothing.
If you can't grasp it then don't take me on.

Ill assume you arent working on a phd and we wont being seeing you with a nobel prize anytime soon.

Absolutely correct.

It’s best just to ignore sceptitank. Every time a good argument is brought against denpressure he just changes denpressure so the argument no long works.

I agree.
Anyone who gets all irritated and worked up when they can't grasp it or destroy it needs to back out and ignore me.
Don't reply to this. You had your chance and failed.

Quote from: sokarul on November 30, 2018, 08:00:28 AM

It’s best just to ignore sceptitank. Every time a good argument is brought against denpressure he just changes denpressure so the argument no long works.

I agree.
Anyone who gets all irritated and worked up when they can't grasp it or destroy it needs to back out and ignore me.
Don't reply to this. You had your chance and failed.

Lol

Remember when you claimed air could passs through anything?
Remember when I pointed out high pressure gas cylinders exist? Also liquid dewars?
How much does 400 liters of argon weigh under 300 psi? It would be around 500 kg at normal pressure. So is it roughly 20 times as much under pressure? 100000kg? How do delivery drivers move th dewars? No one has ever noticed a 10 ton dewar change to 500 kg when the pressure is released.


Lol


You fail so hard.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2018, 08:10:16 AM

Quote from: sokarul on November 30, 2018, 08:00:28 AM

It’s best just to ignore sceptitank. Every time a good argument is brought against denpressure he just changes denpressure so the argument no long works.

I agree.
Anyone who gets all irritated and worked up when they can't grasp it or destroy it needs to back out and ignore me.
Don't reply to this. You had your chance and failed.

Lol

Remember when you claimed air could passs through anything?
Remember when I pointed out high pressure gas cylinders exist? Also liquid dewars?
How much does 400 liters of argon weigh under 300 psi? It would be around 500 kg at normal pressure. So is it roughly 20 times as much under pressure? 100000kg? How do delivery drivers move th dewars? No one has ever noticed a 10 ton dewar change to 500 kg when the pressure is released.


Lol


You fail so hard.

If you want to play with me then start a topic with your grievances you bad tempered little man. 

Ok   we can try again.
Ill redefine your words so we can not confuse the rest.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2018, 04:06:12 PM

Yes   defying physics is hard...

You mean defying what we're told is real physics.

Quote from: Themightykabool

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

It's not exactly a ball expanding to one side.
This is where the gobstopper mindset has to come to the fore. It's not just as basic as an expanding sponge ball or one bubble or whatever.
The issue here is in trying to get people to understand that absolute basics of the basics by using analogies and such in order for a small piece of a jigsaw can show a bit of a bigger picture.

Most people simply go into denial mode of my theory and skew it all for themselves. The only issue is in whether they're doing it deliberately or accidentally.

Quote from: Themightykabool

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.

You need to understand what you mean by vacuuming out.
Tell me how you vacuum out matter from a container.
Give me your process as to how that's possible and I'll show you my process.
It's all about wiping away magic and replacing it with potential reality.

Quote from: Themightykabool

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

Using the grade this and that school stuff shows me where you're going.
If you're not interested then just stay away from the topic and carry on with your mindset.

If you are then understand that you have to try and see it from my side whether you believe it or not.
Jane doesn't believe my side but she's took the time to understand what I'm getting at.

If it is not as simple as an expanding sponge or ball, stop using them as examples and provide a thorough example and explanation.

If it is not as simple as an expanding sponge or ball, stop using them as examples and provide a thorough example and explanation.

If you can't understand what he's presented already, getting more complicated isn't going to help. If you can understand what he's said already, it's really not that much of a leap to figure out the rest.