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

Read his post again.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 30, 2018, 03:21:09 PM

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.

Jane, there are inherent issues with the analogies and the explanations he is providing.  He admits that the analogies he uses aren't exactly how it works.  You can't expect someone to not have considerable questions when the analogy he uses and admits that those analogies are not exactly how it works.

So if your simple analogy and explanation isn't absolutely accurate to the model, the issue with why someone isn't understanding is you and your explanation, not the people not understanding your methodology.

Quote from: Jane on November 30, 2018, 04:16:46 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 30, 2018, 03:21:09 PM

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.

Jane, there are inherent issues with the analogies and the explanations he is providing.  He admits that the analogies he uses aren't exactly how it works.  You can't expect someone to not have considerable questions when the analogy he uses and admits that those analogies are not exactly how it works.

So if your simple analogy and explanation isn't absolutely accurate to the model, the issue with why someone isn't understanding is you and your explanation, not the people not understanding your methodology.

If I was to put an analogy to the exact accuracy of the model it would be totally lost on you if you can't grasp the basics from a blank canvas type of thing, which is what I'm trying to do.

You people profess to be scientists and you all seem to know all the magic of mainstream science...even the silly complicated nonsense and yet you can't grasp the very basics of what's being said here.
That tells me more about you than it does about the way I explain things.

Jane grasps a lot of it. Why?
Because she took the time to see how I'musing my theory rather than taking the time to try and destroy it.
That's the difference and is why many people fall apart trying to understand at first then simply going into attempted ridicule mode, or in cases like Sokarul, childish nah nah mode when he gets blanked.

This will be my last post having a dig back.
Either try and grasp it from my side by trying to understand the basics, if you're genuinely interested, or simply deck out and leave it to those who want to work it out.
If nobody bothers then the topic disappears until one day someone decides they do. Someone genuine hopefully.

It's a pointless exercise arguing with a sokarul type who claims some kind of victory on something he has no clue about.
I gave him his 5 minutes again to see if he calmed down from last time and he's shown no attempt to act normal.
I'll be more than happy to answer questions and more than happy to go right down to literal ground basics.
Just remember that arguing those basics by attempting to go too far ahead is only going to complicate matters for yourself and others.

The key to understanding my side is to question your own schooled side and place it to one side whilst looking at how mine works.

Jane, there are inherent issues with the analogies and the explanations he is providing.  He admits that the analogies he uses aren't exactly how it works.  You can't expect someone to not have considerable questions when the analogy he uses and admits that those analogies are not exactly how it works.

So if your simple analogy and explanation isn't absolutely accurate to the model, the issue with why someone isn't understanding is you and your explanation, not the people not understanding your methodology.

Have you ever been in a classroom in your life? Take chemistry, do you learn about all the intricacies of nuclear force, quarks, subatomic structure before you start hearing about how chemical reactions work, or do you start from a much more developed point using placeholders? Your objection isn't with Scepti, it's apparently with the concept of learning. if you don't want to put the effort in, don't pretend you do.

Its true
Electron rings in grade nine turn into electron clouds in grade 10.

No change in weight.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 30, 2018, 04:39:04 PM

Jane, there are inherent issues with the analogies and the explanations he is providing.  He admits that the analogies he uses aren't exactly how it works.  You can't expect someone to not have considerable questions when the analogy he uses and admits that those analogies are not exactly how it works.

So if your simple analogy and explanation isn't absolutely accurate to the model, the issue with why someone isn't understanding is you and your explanation, not the people not understanding your methodology.

Have you ever been in a classroom in your life? Take chemistry, do you learn about all the intricacies of nuclear force, quarks, subatomic structure before you start hearing about how chemical reactions work, or do you start from a much more developed point using placeholders? Your objection isn't with Scepti, it's apparently with the concept of learning. if you don't want to put the effort in, don't pretend you do.

Nice Strawman, but we aren't in high school or grade school.  We weren't born yesterday and this isn't a classroom.   Explain the theory in detail.  The excuse "you won't understand" is pure BS and just an attempt to keep skirting the fact that he can't explain it.\\

Furthermore, in chemistry they didn't tell us about chemical reactions and then tell us that isn't how it actually works.

You wont understand because he mix and matches commonly used terms with his own definitions.

Left is up.
Dense is volume.
Purple is green.

Nice Strawman, but we aren't in high school or grade school.  We weren't born yesterday and this isn't a classroom.   Explain the theory in detail.  The excuse "you won't understand" is pure BS and just an attempt to keep skirting the fact that he can't explain it.\\

Furthermore, in chemistry they didn't tell us about chemical reactions and then tell us that isn't how it actually works.

It's not 'you won't understand,' it's 'you don't start at the end of the book and work backwards.' Scepti's order for explaining the model works, take it from me. Instead of your first questions being attempts to refute it, get a handle on what's an accurate description and what's a placeholder for more developed parts of the model. Once you understand that, then go after the more developed parts.

And, uh, yep that is how chemistry works. I remember all the talk about ionic and covalent bonds, the amount of electrons in the outer shell etc, not once was there any mention of wave/particle duality or any of quantum theory which is after all rather key to the whole notion of electrons. You don't leap in right at the end, this isn't a straw man, it's how everything works. It is so, so, so much more useful to understand what it is you expect as consequences before you get to the nitty-gritty, because then you have a much clearer view of how it is those basics work.

Don't pretend like you're interested in learning the model if you'd rather complain than listen.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 01, 2018, 11:58:55 AM

Nice Strawman, but we aren't in high school or grade school.  We weren't born yesterday and this isn't a classroom.   Explain the theory in detail.  The excuse "you won't understand" is pure BS and just an attempt to keep skirting the fact that he can't explain it.\\

Furthermore, in chemistry they didn't tell us about chemical reactions and then tell us that isn't how it actually works.

It's not 'you won't understand,' it's 'you don't start at the end of the book and work backwards.' Scepti's order for explaining the model works, take it from me. Instead of your first questions being attempts to refute it, get a handle on what's an accurate description and what's a placeholder for more developed parts of the model. Once you understand that, then go after the more developed parts.

And, uh, yep that is how chemistry works. I remember all the talk about ionic and covalent bonds, the amount of electrons in the outer shell etc, not once was there any mention of wave/particle duality or any of quantum theory which is after all rather key to the whole notion of electrons. You don't leap in right at the end, this isn't a straw man, it's how everything works. It is so, so, so much more useful to understand what it is you expect as consequences before you get to the nitty-gritty, because then you have a much clearer view of how it is those basics work.

Don't pretend like you're interested in learning the model if you'd rather complain than listen.

Just because I joined after the topic was dormant doesn't mean I haven't read it or the other denspressure topics.  You assume a lot about others for knowing absolutely nothing about them.  You should probably stop interjecting your opinion.

Just because I joined after the topic was dormant doesn't mean I haven't read it or the other denspressure topics.  You assume a lot about others for knowing absolutely nothing about them.  You should probably stop interjecting your opinion.

I'm perfectly capable judging based on what I've seen in this and other threads. Scepti has his way of explaining things, it works if you give it a chance. If you don't want to, leave. If you do, do so. The end.

if You understand his model tell us, how much does 200 kg of liquid argon weigh at 300 psi?

How much does 100 g weigh at 1/10^th atmospheric pressure?

Quote from: Jane on December 01, 2018, 03:21:58 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 01, 2018, 11:58:55 AM

Nice Strawman, but we aren't in high school or grade school.  We weren't born yesterday and this isn't a classroom.   Explain the theory in detail.  The excuse "you won't understand" is pure BS and just an attempt to keep skirting the fact that he can't explain it.\\

Furthermore, in chemistry they didn't tell us about chemical reactions and then tell us that isn't how it actually works.

It's not 'you won't understand,' it's 'you don't start at the end of the book and work backwards.' Scepti's order for explaining the model works, take it from me. Instead of your first questions being attempts to refute it, get a handle on what's an accurate description and what's a placeholder for more developed parts of the model. Once you understand that, then go after the more developed parts.

And, uh, yep that is how chemistry works. I remember all the talk about ionic and covalent bonds, the amount of electrons in the outer shell etc, not once was there any mention of wave/particle duality or any of quantum theory which is after all rather key to the whole notion of electrons. You don't leap in right at the end, this isn't a straw man, it's how everything works. It is so, so, so much more useful to understand what it is you expect as consequences before you get to the nitty-gritty, because then you have a much clearer view of how it is those basics work.

Don't pretend like you're interested in learning the model if you'd rather complain than listen.

Just because I joined after the topic was dormant doesn't mean I haven't read it or the other denspressure topics.  You assume a lot about others for knowing absolutely nothing about them.  You should probably stop interjecting your opinion.

If you've read all the topics on denpressure and you're still trying to argue the extreme basics then you're either trying too hard to grasp the simplicity or you are rejecting every piece as you read it rather than trying to understand it from my aspect.

If you think my stance on sayings goes against mainstream acceptance then ask yourself why I'm altering certain stuff and then picture it as walking into a different class where they do things differently to what you were taught.

It's likely that the simplicity scares you in such a way as to make you feel embarrassed to even dare to understand it for fear of ridicule. I'm not too sure.

Keep every last portion of the theories you were brought up to adhere to. It's fine with me. I refute a lot of it with my own ideas but that does not make what I say, correct...it means that I hypothesise it and anyone wanting to try and understand it needs to do so without immediate rejection at every turn by using your schooled theories as some kind of whack-a-mole mallet.


Here's another key.
Jane has taken the time to understand it. It doesn't mean she agrees with it.
Jane has her own mindset on stuff but she's inquisitive enough to try to understand alternate hypotheses and question them to gain a stronger insight into how and why those alternates could work in an alternate hypothesis.

To even begin to get it you really do need to accept the most basic start, even if it appears backward and/or childish to you.
1+1 = 2. It can be argued but the simplicity is there to start with before we move on, even though most people would shout " no, no, I'm not answering that question because it's degrading and is insulting to my intelligence...try a much more complicated math question."

If I change something I have a reason for doing so.
If I use normal wording in a different context, it's because I feel it fits better for my stance.
Accept that just as you would accept different ways and cultures all over the known world.

if You understand his model tell us, how much does 200 kg of liquid argon weigh at 300 psi?

How much does 100 g weigh at 1/10^th atmospheric pressure?

Go back to the barometer to understand how pressure works in decreasing or increasing a push on dense mass (ie, liquid mercury).

Grasp this and you'll see how it works and also know why the evacuation chamber isn't a very good yardstick to give any reasonable insight.

Ok. Now what’s jane’s response?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 01, 2018, 03:35:30 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 01, 2018, 03:21:58 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 01, 2018, 11:58:55 AM

Nice Strawman, but we aren't in high school or grade school.  We weren't born yesterday and this isn't a classroom.   Explain the theory in detail.  The excuse "you won't understand" is pure BS and just an attempt to keep skirting the fact that he can't explain it.\\

Furthermore, in chemistry they didn't tell us about chemical reactions and then tell us that isn't how it actually works.

It's not 'you won't understand,' it's 'you don't start at the end of the book and work backwards.' Scepti's order for explaining the model works, take it from me. Instead of your first questions being attempts to refute it, get a handle on what's an accurate description and what's a placeholder for more developed parts of the model. Once you understand that, then go after the more developed parts.

And, uh, yep that is how chemistry works. I remember all the talk about ionic and covalent bonds, the amount of electrons in the outer shell etc, not once was there any mention of wave/particle duality or any of quantum theory which is after all rather key to the whole notion of electrons. You don't leap in right at the end, this isn't a straw man, it's how everything works. It is so, so, so much more useful to understand what it is you expect as consequences before you get to the nitty-gritty, because then you have a much clearer view of how it is those basics work.

Don't pretend like you're interested in learning the model if you'd rather complain than listen.

Just because I joined after the topic was dormant doesn't mean I haven't read it or the other denspressure topics.  You assume a lot about others for knowing absolutely nothing about them.  You should probably stop interjecting your opinion.

If you've read all the topics on denpressure and you're still trying to argue the extreme basics then you're either trying too hard to grasp the simplicity or you are rejecting every piece as you read it rather than trying to understand it from my aspect.

If you think my stance on sayings goes against mainstream acceptance then ask yourself why I'm altering certain stuff and then picture it as walking into a different class where they do things differently to what you were taught.

It's likely that the simplicity scares you in such a way as to make you feel embarrassed to even dare to understand it for fear of ridicule. I'm not too sure.

Keep every last portion of the theories you were brought up to adhere to. It's fine with me. I refute a lot of it with my own ideas but that does not make what I say, correct...it means that I hypothesise it and anyone wanting to try and understand it needs to do so without immediate rejection at every turn by using your schooled theories as some kind of whack-a-mole mallet.


Here's another key.
Jane has taken the time to understand it. It doesn't mean she agrees with it.
Jane has her own mindset on stuff but she's inquisitive enough to try to understand alternate hypotheses and question them to gain a stronger insight into how and why those alternates could work in an alternate hypothesis.

To even begin to get it you really do need to accept the most basic start, even if it appears backward and/or childish to you.
1+1 = 2. It can be argued but the simplicity is there to start with before we move on, even though most people would shout " no, no, I'm not answering that question because it's degrading and is insulting to my intelligence...try a much more complicated math question."

If I change something I have a reason for doing so.
If I use normal wording in a different context, it's because I feel it fits better for my stance.
Accept that just as you would accept different ways and cultures all over the known world.

Keep circling.

Here I'll break this down for you.

Your comparison on the complexity of understanding denspressure is like trying to understand Calculus without understanding the basics of Mathematics.

Ok Fair.

So you are starting out with the simple constructs such as 1+1 = 2, then moving on.

Also fair.

So you give me 1+1=2.  When I get to the level of Calculus or even just Algebra, 1+1=2 still applies and doesn't magically change.

The problem I have is that with your basics, when moving forward, the basics are being contradicted or the basics aren't how it works exactly.

Your explanations are 1+1=2 but when we get to x+1=2, x does not equal 1.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 04, 2018, 12:42:40 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 01, 2018, 03:35:30 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 01, 2018, 03:21:58 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 01, 2018, 11:58:55 AM

Nice Strawman, but we aren't in high school or grade school.  We weren't born yesterday and this isn't a classroom.   Explain the theory in detail.  The excuse "you won't understand" is pure BS and just an attempt to keep skirting the fact that he can't explain it.\\

Furthermore, in chemistry they didn't tell us about chemical reactions and then tell us that isn't how it actually works.

It's not 'you won't understand,' it's 'you don't start at the end of the book and work backwards.' Scepti's order for explaining the model works, take it from me. Instead of your first questions being attempts to refute it, get a handle on what's an accurate description and what's a placeholder for more developed parts of the model. Once you understand that, then go after the more developed parts.

And, uh, yep that is how chemistry works. I remember all the talk about ionic and covalent bonds, the amount of electrons in the outer shell etc, not once was there any mention of wave/particle duality or any of quantum theory which is after all rather key to the whole notion of electrons. You don't leap in right at the end, this isn't a straw man, it's how everything works. It is so, so, so much more useful to understand what it is you expect as consequences before you get to the nitty-gritty, because then you have a much clearer view of how it is those basics work.

Don't pretend like you're interested in learning the model if you'd rather complain than listen.

Just because I joined after the topic was dormant doesn't mean I haven't read it or the other denspressure topics.  You assume a lot about others for knowing absolutely nothing about them.  You should probably stop interjecting your opinion.

If you've read all the topics on denpressure and you're still trying to argue the extreme basics then you're either trying too hard to grasp the simplicity or you are rejecting every piece as you read it rather than trying to understand it from my aspect.

If you think my stance on sayings goes against mainstream acceptance then ask yourself why I'm altering certain stuff and then picture it as walking into a different class where they do things differently to what you were taught.

It's likely that the simplicity scares you in such a way as to make you feel embarrassed to even dare to understand it for fear of ridicule. I'm not too sure.

Keep every last portion of the theories you were brought up to adhere to. It's fine with me. I refute a lot of it with my own ideas but that does not make what I say, correct...it means that I hypothesise it and anyone wanting to try and understand it needs to do so without immediate rejection at every turn by using your schooled theories as some kind of whack-a-mole mallet.


Here's another key.
Jane has taken the time to understand it. It doesn't mean she agrees with it.
Jane has her own mindset on stuff but she's inquisitive enough to try to understand alternate hypotheses and question them to gain a stronger insight into how and why those alternates could work in an alternate hypothesis.

To even begin to get it you really do need to accept the most basic start, even if it appears backward and/or childish to you.
1+1 = 2. It can be argued but the simplicity is there to start with before we move on, even though most people would shout " no, no, I'm not answering that question because it's degrading and is insulting to my intelligence...try a much more complicated math question."

If I change something I have a reason for doing so.
If I use normal wording in a different context, it's because I feel it fits better for my stance.
Accept that just as you would accept different ways and cultures all over the known world.

Keep circling.

Here I'll break this down for you.

Your comparison on the complexity of understanding denspressure is like trying to understand Calculus without understanding the basics of Mathematics.

Ok Fair.

So you are starting out with the simple constructs such as 1+1 = 2, then moving on.

Also fair.

So you give me 1+1=2.  When I get to the level of Calculus or even just Algebra, 1+1=2 still applies and doesn't magically change.

The problem I have is that with your basics, when moving forward, the basics are being contradicted or the basics aren't how it works exactly.

Your explanations are 1+1=2 but when we get to x+1=2, x does not equal 1.

If you want to grasp it then allow yourself to go over the absolute basics.
Start by thinking how an evacuation chamber works from my point and not the way you think it works.
By refusing to even look at this part you totally refuse to look at anything....because this alone is a massive key into seeing how things fit from the very basics.

The sponge ball analogy or the bubble effect maybe be a crude and basic start but it gives real insight if taken notice of to get a grip on how matter is working for and against us, in my hypothesis.

The rest of it can be added to as and when the simple basics are grasped.
It may become boring and repetitive to some. You may think it's not worth your effort and think of me as trying to be awkward or whatever.
 I can't do anything if you get bored but I can promise you that my efforts are genuine and in no way is my intent to create issues in deliberately winding people up. I'd be happy to continually answer questions as I go but people need to remember not to jump into the deep end and start shooting all kinds of figures out as if they're proving some point of scuppering my explanations.

Let's start basic and you answer some questions for me to see where you stand on how you see a vacuum chamber.

In the best way possible with some effort into detail, can you explain to me as basically as you can by using your own analogies, how you create your vacuum.
Just tell me what's happening and why you think it's happening from chamber to pump to external atmosphere.

Then I'll explain mine for you to grasp and I'll do it slowly and ask you if you grasp it. I won't do it to insult your intelligence. I'll do it so I can be clear that you literally grasp each piece of info.

If you don't want to do this then simply say and I'll leave it at that with you.

So to appease your question.  According to you, the connected molecules are moved out of the chamber via a pump.  As they move out, the remaining molecules in the stack expand to fill the void.  Eventually the molecules expand to a point where the pump can not move them anymore.

That's the gist of how you think an evacuation chamber works.

So to appease your question.  According to you, the connected molecules are moved out of the chamber via a pump.  As they move out, the remaining molecules in the stack expand to fill the void.  Eventually the molecules expand to a point where the pump can not move them anymore.

That's the gist of how you think an evacuation chamber works.

Nope that's not my gist and this is why you really need to pay attention and not jump the gun, because you're skewing what I'm trying to tell you.
The pump does absolutely nothing for the molecules inside the chamber, directly.
The pump does its work external to the chamber.
The molecules inside the chamber cannot expand unless the pump pushes back the atmosphere externally to allow that expansion.
Are you with me?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 04, 2018, 08:58:02 AM

So to appease your question.  According to you, the connected molecules are moved out of the chamber via a pump.  As they move out, the remaining molecules in the stack expand to fill the void.  Eventually the molecules expand to a point where the pump can not move them anymore.

That's the gist of how you think an evacuation chamber works.

Nope that's not my gist and this is why you really need to pay attention and not jump the gun, because you're skewing what I'm trying to tell you.
The pump does absolutely nothing for the molecules inside the chamber, directly.
The pump does its work external to the chamber.
The molecules inside the chamber cannot expand unless the pump pushes back the atmosphere externally to allow that expansion.
Are you with me?

Are you retarded?


The pump has to compress the outside atmosphere with something.  Where do you think that compression comes from genius?  Magic?

Molecules inside the chamber must leave the chamber for there to be expansion, which means they travel through the pump.  As the pump facilitates the movement of the molecules they compress against the external atmosphere. As there is a near infinite amount of space outside the chamber, the compression of the atmosphere would dissipate amongst the other stacks.  Meanwhile the facilitation of this compression would allow for expansion of the molecules inside the chamber as there is room to expand.


This follows your rules of expansion and compression of molecules.  If that isn't how it works, you have a flawed understanding of compression and expansion.

Are you retarded?

How about, instead of telling Scepti what his model is, you listen to what he has to say?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 04, 2018, 10:52:06 AM

Are you retarded?

How about, instead of telling Scepti what his model is, you listen to what he has to say?

Jane, your input is not relevant.  I couldn't careless what you think you are a researcher of or how much knowledge you think you have.   If myself or Scepti wanted your input onto our discussion, we would have addressed the question to include you.  So kindly butt out.

Scepti said that molecules expand and compress.  He has used several analogies to describe how it works to include a sponge type ball under some pressure.  He then asked me to describe his process of how he sees an evac chamber works, I wrote a quick gist of how it works, per his previous statements and how molecules are both stacked and expand/contract.  It was well within what he has previously stated.  If need be, I'll sift through the thousands of posts on the subject and several topics and post them.


There is nothing difficult to understand about Denspressure.  The act that there is something difficult comes when the explanations of how it works fail to meet reality and/or are completely flawed.

Scepti said that molecules expand and compress.  He has used several analogies to describe how it works to include a sponge type ball under some pressure.  He then asked me to describe his process of how he sees an evac chamber works, I wrote a quick gist of how it works, per his previous statements and how molecules are both stacked and expand/contract.  It was well within what he has previously stated.  If need be, I'll sift through the thousands of posts on the subject and several topics and post them.

Sure, maybe you can interpret some of his posts that way, maybe not, my objection is when you decide that your interpretation must be valid and that you know his model better than he does. As soon as you say that you make it clear you don't actually care about making an informed case. I'm hoping a second person pointing out how you sound will convince you to actually try.

If you want what I've seen, it's that the pump functions by trying to force some air out of the area adjacent to the chamber, ie within the pump itself. Thus, the air in the chamber has room to expand; like Scepti says, the pump has no direct effect inside the chamber, the air simply expands when it has the opportunity to do so, when it has sufficient energy to push against the space within the pump. It expands, the molecules further in the chamber expand as they always want to do but now they have the opportunity, some get pushed out. Rinse, repeat. When the air within the chamber can't push hard enough against what's left in the pump to expand into it, that's when the pump can't do any more.

The key is just the relationship between the chamber and the interior of the pump. My understanding at least, and seems to be a far cry from yours with a few of your claims, but simultaneously, amazingly, is in line with what Scepti has actually said.

Jane?

if You understand his model tell us, how much does 200 kg of liquid argon weigh at 300 psi?

How much does 100 g weigh at 1/10^th atmospheric pressure?

Jane?

Quote from: sokarul on December 03, 2018, 03:22:48 PM

if You understand his model tell us, how much does 200 kg of liquid argon weigh at 300 psi?

How much does 100 g weigh at 1/10^th atmospheric pressure?

Scepti answered you. Why are you asking me?
My response would just be for you to define psi and how you're measuring atmospheric pressure in this case.

Quote from: Jane on December 04, 2018, 11:03:34 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 04, 2018, 10:52:06 AM

Are you retarded?

How about, instead of telling Scepti what his model is, you listen to what he has to say?

Jane, your input is not relevant.  I couldn't careless what you think you are a researcher of or how much knowledge you think you have.   If myself or Scepti wanted your input onto our discussion, we would have addressed the question to include you.  So kindly butt out.

Scepti said that molecules expand and compress.  He has used several analogies to describe how it works to include a sponge type ball under some pressure.  He then asked me to describe his process of how he sees an evac chamber works, I wrote a quick gist of how it works, per his previous statements and how molecules are both stacked and expand/contract.  It was well within what he has previously stated.  If need be, I'll sift through the thousands of posts on the subject and several topics and post them.


There is nothing difficult to understand about Denspressure.  The act that there is something difficult comes when the explanations of how it works fail to meet reality and/or are completely flawed.

First of all I welcome Jane's input. She gets what I'm saying and you actually don't.

Whether that's deliberate or not is open to question.
Also I asked you to tell me how you believe a chamber is evacuated. I didn't ask you to tell me how mine does. I said I'd tell you that.
It appears you're deliberately skewing it all.

Quote from: sokarul on December 04, 2018, 12:45:08 PM

Jane?

Quote from: sokarul on December 03, 2018, 03:22:48 PM

if You understand his model tell us, how much does 200 kg of liquid argon weigh at 300 psi?

How much does 100 g weigh at 1/10^th atmospheric pressure?

Scepti answered you. Why are you asking me?
My response would just be for you to define psi and how you're measuring atmospheric pressure in this case.

I asked you first. You claimed to understand sceptitank but fail to answer a simple question. You clearly do not understand him.
No need to play dumb, psi is defined as is atmospheric pressure.

Quote from: sokarul on December 03, 2018, 03:22:48 PM

if You understand his model tell us, how much does 200 kg of liquid argon weigh at 300 psi?

How much does 100 g weigh at 1/10^th atmospheric pressure?

Go back to the barometer to understand how pressure works in decreasing or increasing a push on dense mass (ie, liquid mercury).

Grasp this and you'll see how it works and also know why the evacuation chamber isn't a very good yardstick to give any reasonable insight.

A mercury barometer works from air pressure pushing on the pool of mercury and forcing it up a tube. Mechanical barometers do not contain mercury so they work in orientation. thus indicating air pressure is not just in the down direction.

A barometer could be filled with any liquid, if the tube was high enough. Dense mass has nothing to do with it.

Quote from: Jane on December 04, 2018, 12:54:27 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 04, 2018, 12:45:08 PM

Jane?

Quote from: sokarul on December 03, 2018, 03:22:48 PM

if You understand his model tell us, how much does 200 kg of liquid argon weigh at 300 psi?

How much does 100 g weigh at 1/10^th atmospheric pressure?

Scepti answered you. Why are you asking me?
My response would just be for you to define psi and how you're measuring atmospheric pressure in this case.

I asked you first. You claimed to understand sceptitank but fail to answer a simple question. You clearly do not understand him.
No need to play dumb, psi is defined as is atmospheric pressure.

I ignored it because I've tried to deal with you before, and because it's a pointless question. What knowledge is actually gained by an answer to that?
I am well aware of how psi is conventionally used. It may have escaped your notice but we are not talking about a conventional model, you don't get to transfer things across with zero elaboration. If you can't even formulate a question that makes sense, maybe you shouldn't be claiming anything about the model.

A mercury barometer works from air pressure pushing on the pool of mercury and forcing it up a tube.

Correct...but do you actually know why it can be pushed up the tube?

Mechanical barometers do not contain mercury so they work in orientation. thus indicating air pressure is not just in the down direction.

Expansion and contraction of metals is just another way to create measurement. It doesn't change my hypothesis. My hypothesis explains any of this stuff but changing it up to suit you does not gain you anything from my side, which inevitably leads to pointless discussion and why you end up generally getting blanked.
Try and learn it because you don't know my hypothesis.

If you want to question it then fine but don't go too far ahead of what's being explained as the basics once again or we end up skewed and having to restart.

A barometer could be filled with any liquid, if the tube was high enough. Dense mass has nothing to do with it.

Everything has dense mass, otherwise it wouldn't be a thing, no matter what.
The only difference between densities is porosity and how much they displace atmospheric pressure in my hypothesis.

The only difference between densities is porosity and how much they displace atmospheric pressure in my hypothesis.

Is the above statement the crux of the biscuit?

If I go back to the hypothesis:

"Den Pressure:
Is the act of Air Pressure creating weight by pressing down on an object.  The density of an object determines how much air pressure affects how much force is transferred to the object to create weight.  For instance a less dense object would be affected less and in return would weight less."

A couple of super basic questions. And probably addressed a multitude of times over 70+pages:

1) Wouldn't the act of air pressure be from all sides, not just a down vector?
2) Is the contention that if a vacuum is created in a vessel the object within is unaffected in terms of it's weight and your hypothesis says that, in some way, there is still some sort of air pressure present? In essence, a vacuum vessel is not achievable?