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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 265038 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2190 on: December 05, 2018, 01:18:20 AM »
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?
Yes it's from all sides. It's acting on every part of any dense mass that is displacing it.
We are being squeezed and are repelling that squeeze upon us and all around us.
The more dense we are the more atmosphere we repel and it's simply our very own dense mass that dictates how much pressure we push into.
To make this easier, just imagine atmosphere as a black picture.
Imagine a block of lead in that picture that cannot be seen other than seeing faint tiny white dots.
That would be the minute porosity of that lead block but if you were to take that block away you would leave a white block silhouette  with black tiny dots in it, assuming we could suspend animation at that point.

So what we're seeing is the porosity at that point.
The black ots would be atmosphere already within the block and part of the external atmospheric pressure within the block that is obviously not part of the block's ability to repel that atmosphere. So the lead actually does have porosity but not a lot of it, which means that the rest of that dense mass is displacing the atmosphere around it..and as you would be able to imagine, it would be a block that is using a foundation (ground) as a resistance to that atmospheric push back/squeeze of it's own displaced mass, back onto it.

Equal action and reaction, basically.

This is how you would get man made weight measurement if you were to use a scale plate as your foundation.

Read that through and think carefully about it. It's simple but maybe my explanation isn't how you generally think.


Quote from: Stash
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?
Think about it this way.

Imagine you have a balloon inside a chamber. The balloon is near flat except for a small amount of atmosphere within it and tied.
Now you place a scale inside a chamber and place the balloon on it. You get a reading, however small.
Now you leave that scale in the chamber and you start to allow the matter inside to evacuate via your pump.
The molecules inside the chamber around the balloon can expand into each other as the pump holds back the external atmosphere from pushing back into the chamber and equalising the pressure.

The thing is, the more the molecules expand external to the balloon the more the compressed molecules inside the balloon expand to equalise the lower pressure expansion by expanding themselves.
One is cancelling out the other at all times. Action/reaction in equal terms.

The scale may measure a small change most likely to actually do with the scale itself working in an environment that it wasn't built for and would likely lose calibration for that environment.




Quote from: Stash
In essence, a vacuum vessel is not achievable?
A vacuum as in total free space is impossible and should be seen to be that.
Free space anywhere is simply impossible.
Lowering pressure by allowing lesser resistance to movement of molecules is the best you can hope for and no pump, no matter how big can allow evacuation of all molecules from a chamber, no matter how strong the chamber is or how strong the pump is.

Why?

Because, like I said a little earlier. The pump does its work against the external atmosphere and has absolutely no direct contact with the chamber, except to be attached by a pipe or tube or whatever to allow the molecules inside that chamber to expand into it under their own push on push expansion that is created for them as they push equally expanded molecules out of the chamber by their own allowed expansion, courtesy of the strength and energy of the pump.

This can happen for a certain period of time depending on pump strength against external atmospheric push, until the molecules inside the chamber either cannot expand into each other anymore... and so, not cause a push on push to release more or they simply go dormant. They basically freeze or to make it easier to grasp...they cease to vibrate through expansion, in this case.

The end product is always the same...you can never create free space and you can never rid any container of matter, no matter what.
The best you can do is to create the freeze.
This is why the dome works but we'll get to all that way way down the line, because it all ties in if you're willing to grasp it and be patient like Jane has..

Don't go any further unless you grasp what I'm saying.
If you require more info, just ask... but keep it as basic as you can and try not to go down a different route until this is cleared up enough for you to do so.

You never know, you might start thinking different if something clicks in your mind. But that's up to you.
In the meantime, we'll carry on...if you're willing to do so. Either way the choice is yours.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 02:20:33 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2191 on: December 05, 2018, 01:53:31 AM »
The problem with this, as with many ideas thrown around here, is youíre talking about rewriting very fundamental physics and the basics of engineering going back at least to the industrial revolution.

It would mean we donít understand everything from a simple pneumatic hose to engines, planes and power stations.  It would mean throwing away all our engineering textbooks and basically starting from scratch.

And that leaves the obvious problem of why all this technology the world relies on actually works the way it was designed to?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2192 on: December 05, 2018, 02:30:37 AM »
The problem with this, as with many ideas thrown around here, is youíre talking about rewriting very fundamental physics and the basics of engineering going back at least to the industrial revolution.

It would mean we donít understand everything from a simple pneumatic hose to engines, planes and power stations.  It would mean throwing away all our engineering textbooks and basically starting from scratch.

And that leaves the obvious problem of why all this technology the world relies on actually works the way it was designed to?
Yep, you have to rewrite a lot of it.
As for technology working the way it was designed to. It still does. The only difference is, a lot of the reality has been swapped for fictional wording, like gravity and such.

If you look at a lot of the stuff you'll see that denpressure easily caters for it. All it does is throw out some of the duping stuff that keeps alive fictional stuff like space and what not.

When you see the simplicity of stuff you'll understand that many things have been made deliberately more complicated than they are to ensure we don't see the basics.
That might seem childish to you but we are literally coaxed into mind numbing theories that are and have basic answers and workings.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2193 on: December 05, 2018, 04:45:38 AM »

Yep, you have to rewrite a lot of it.
As for technology working the way it was designed to. It still does. The only difference is, a lot of the reality has been swapped for fictional wording, like gravity and such.

If you look at a lot of the stuff you'll see that denpressure easily caters for it. All it does is throw out some of the duping stuff that keeps alive fictional stuff like space and what not.

When you see the simplicity of stuff you'll understand that many things have been made deliberately more complicated than they are to ensure we don't see the basics.
That might seem childish to you but we are literally coaxed into mind numbing theories that are and have basic answers and workings.

Well if itís just wording, it doesnít matter.  We can call whatever we like ďgravityĒ and ďdensityĒ, thatís not fact or fiction just the words we use.

What you are talking about is changing fundamental concepts in a big way.  And not just for edge cases under rare circumstances, but in general.

I donít think your explanation is simpler.  Gravity, density, permeability, etc. are plenty simple enough concepts for practical use.  Gravity only really gets complicated when talking about what causes it on a quantum/spacetime level, which for engineering purposes doesnít matter in the slightest.

I do look at this stuff, all the time. Specing materials for various mechanical applications is a critical part of my job.  That includes for gas systems, pressure vessels and occasionally high vacuum applications.  I can assure you for instance, that a bracket to hold a heavy object has to be just as strong whether in atmospheric, vacuum or pressurised environment. 

Permeability of materials (particularly polymers) to air and other gases is a big topic with consequences for pneumatic design, biomedical applications, food packaging (why crisp/chip packages have positive pressure of nitrogen) etc, etc.

The idea that weíve got all this so spectacularly wrong for so long yet somehow still been able to make stuff that works just isnít credible.

Even more incredible is the alternative that weíve had to learn both the ďfake physicsĒ, including all scientific papers and textbooks publicly available, as well as the top secret ďreal physicsĒ, texts of which presumably are only available to the Illuminati or something.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2194 on: December 05, 2018, 05:30:21 AM »

Yep, you have to rewrite a lot of it.
As for technology working the way it was designed to. It still does. The only difference is, a lot of the reality has been swapped for fictional wording, like gravity and such.

If you look at a lot of the stuff you'll see that denpressure easily caters for it. All it does is throw out some of the duping stuff that keeps alive fictional stuff like space and what not.

When you see the simplicity of stuff you'll understand that many things have been made deliberately more complicated than they are to ensure we don't see the basics.
That might seem childish to you but we are literally coaxed into mind numbing theories that are and have basic answers and workings.

Well if itís just wording, it doesnít matter.  We can call whatever we like ďgravityĒ and ďdensityĒ, thatís not fact or fiction just the words we use.

What you are talking about is changing fundamental concepts in a big way.  And not just for edge cases under rare circumstances, but in general.

I donít think your explanation is simpler.  Gravity, density, permeability, etc. are plenty simple enough concepts for practical use.  Gravity only really gets complicated when talking about what causes it on a quantum/spacetime level, which for engineering purposes doesnít matter in the slightest.

I do look at this stuff, all the time. Specing materials for various mechanical applications is a critical part of my job.  That includes for gas systems, pressure vessels and occasionally high vacuum applications.  I can assure you for instance, that a bracket to hold a heavy object has to be just as strong whether in atmospheric, vacuum or pressurised environment. 

Permeability of materials (particularly polymers) to air and other gases is a big topic with consequences for pneumatic design, biomedical applications, food packaging (why crisp/chip packages have positive pressure of nitrogen) etc, etc.

The idea that weíve got all this so spectacularly wrong for so long yet somehow still been able to make stuff that works just isnít credible.

Even more incredible is the alternative that weíve had to learn both the ďfake physicsĒ, including all scientific papers and textbooks publicly available, as well as the top secret ďreal physicsĒ, texts of which presumably are only available to the Illuminati or something.
It's not a case of getting anything wrong, it's just a case of how it's used, like I said.
Take Gravity for instance.
We are told we can't build things if we don't take gravity into account.
Tell me what's used to make gravity a means for building/construction and tell me what instruments are used.
Only then will you see what I'm saying.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2195 on: December 05, 2018, 06:29:54 AM »

It's not a case of getting anything wrong, it's just a case of how it's used, like I said.
Take Gravity for instance.
We are told we can't build things if we don't take gravity into account.
Tell me what's used to make gravity a means for building/construction and tell me what instruments are used.
Only then will you see what I'm saying.

What you are suggesting is indeed different enough to be right or wrong.

To answer your question (probably the answer you are looking for), we donít need to measure gravity for building construction, we already what gravity is on Earth and only need to know the mass and therefore downward force due to gravity.

So can it work the same?

No.  A flat plate of steel weighs the same, regardless of orientation.  If downward air pressure was responsible for weight, it would weigh far more horizontally than vertically.

How does Den Pressure explain this?

If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something thatís functionally identical for all the normal  applications we take it into account for.  This hypothesis is just too different to what is currently well understood.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 06:34:00 AM by Unconvinced »

*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2196 on: December 05, 2018, 06:42:40 AM »
The problem with this, as with many ideas thrown around here, is youíre talking about rewriting very fundamental physics and the basics of engineering going back at least to the industrial revolution.

It would mean we donít understand everything from a simple pneumatic hose to engines, planes and power stations.  It would mean throwing away all our engineering textbooks and basically starting from scratch.

And that leaves the obvious problem of why all this technology the world relies on actually works the way it was designed to?


To answer your question (probably the answer you are looking for), we donít need to measure gravity for building construction, we already what gravity is on Earth and only need to know the mass and therefore downward force due to gravity.


Someone sounds confused!

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2197 on: December 05, 2018, 06:57:29 AM »
The problem with this, as with many ideas thrown around here, is you’re talking about rewriting very fundamental physics and the basics of engineering going back at least to the industrial revolution.

It would mean we don’t understand everything from a simple pneumatic hose to engines, planes and power stations.  It would mean throwing away all our engineering textbooks and basically starting from scratch.

And that leaves the obvious problem of why all this technology the world relies on actually works the way it was designed to?


To answer your question (probably the answer you are looking for), we don’t need to measure gravity for building construction, we already what gravity is on Earth and only need to know the mass and therefore downward force due to gravity.


Someone sounds confused!

Nice quote mine.  Or did you just miss the part immediately following what you quoted?

“So can it work the same?

No.  A flat plate of steel weighs the same, regardless of orientation.  If downward air pressure was responsible for weight, it would weigh far more horizontally than vertically.“


(Edited for being needlessly combative)
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 08:09:11 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2198 on: December 05, 2018, 08:52:07 AM »
Someone sounds confused!
Is it you?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2199 on: December 05, 2018, 10:03:42 AM »
To answer your question (probably the answer you are looking for), we donít need to measure gravity for building construction, we already what gravity is on Earth and only need to know the mass and therefore downward force due to gravity.
So can it work the same?
If you know what gravity is then tell me, because up to now nobody seems to know what it is. They pretend to accept what it does.
Strange that.
However in denpressure the downward force (atmospheric, not gravity) is directly acting against an upward force of dense mass.


[quote author=Unconvinced No.  A flat plate of steel weighs the same, regardless of orientation.  If downward air pressure was responsible for weight, it would weigh far more horizontally than vertically.

How does Den Pressure explain this?
[/quote]No it wouldn't.
The dense mass of the plate is displacing exactly the same amount of atmosphere whether horizontal or vertical.
Let's say the plate was 8 feet by 4 feet and 2 inches thick laid horizontally, or flat on the ground.
That 2 inches of steel is displacing  that thickness of atmosphere, barring some porosity which we don;t need to go on with this.
So you're displacing 2 inches times 8 feet times 4 feet of atmosphere.
Basically the atmosphere displaced is now pushing back onto the steel plate as that steel plate pushes into it.

Vertically is exactly the same, except for orientation.
It's 2 inches by 4 feet horizontal on the  ground and at a height of 8 feet into the atmosphere.
it's now pushing  up 8 feet by 4 feet by 2 inches into the sky as well as displacing 2 inches of horizontal atmosphere times 4 feet at 8 feet high.

It simply displaces the atmosphere no matter what...by the same amount.


Quote from: Unconvinced
If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something thatís functionally identical for all the normal  applications we take it into account for.
Identical to something that can't be proven?
Obviously there is something but it's masked by fictional gravity.


Quote from: Unconvinced
   This hypothesis is just too different to what is currently well understood.
The problem is, gravity is not well understood. It's well accepted and there's a massive difference with that.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2200 on: December 05, 2018, 11:04:40 AM »
Sceptimatic, how does a high altitude helium balloon work with denpressure?  I understand why it gets bigger and bigger until it pops in RET, but having some difficulty understanding why this would happen with denpressure.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2201 on: December 05, 2018, 12:21:08 PM »
To answer your question (probably the answer you are looking for), we donít need to measure gravity for building construction, we already what gravity is on Earth and only need to know the mass and therefore downward force due to gravity.
So can it work the same?
If you know what gravity is then tell me, because up to now nobody seems to know what it is. They pretend to accept what it does.
Strange that.
However in denpressure the downward force (atmospheric, not gravity) is directly acting against an upward force of dense mass.


Quote from: Unconvinced
No.  A flat plate of steel weighs the same, regardless of orientation.  If downward air pressure was responsible for weight, it would weigh far more horizontally than vertically.

How does Den Pressure explain this?
No it wouldn't.
The dense mass of the plate is displacing exactly the same amount of atmosphere whether horizontal or vertical.
Let's say the plate was 8 feet by 4 feet and 2 inches thick laid horizontally, or flat on the ground.
That 2 inches of steel is displacing  that thickness of atmosphere, barring some porosity which we don;t need to go on with this.
So you're displacing 2 inches times 8 feet times 4 feet of atmosphere.
Basically the atmosphere displaced is now pushing back onto the steel plate as that steel plate pushes into it.

Vertically is exactly the same, except for orientation.
It's 2 inches by 4 feet horizontal on the  ground and at a height of 8 feet into the atmosphere.
it's now pushing  up 8 feet by 4 feet by 2 inches into the sky as well as displacing 2 inches of horizontal atmosphere times 4 feet at 8 feet high.

It simply displaces the atmosphere no matter what...by the same amount.


Quote from: Unconvinced
If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something thatís functionally identical for all the normal  applications we take it into account for.
Identical to something that can't be proven?
Obviously there is something but it's masked by fictional gravity.


Quote from: Unconvinced
   This hypothesis is just too different to what is currently well understood.
The problem is, gravity is not well understood. It's well accepted and there's a massive difference with that.

Thereís nothing strange about understanding how gravity works on a practical level without fully understanding how it works on a quantum level.

Scientific understanding is based on what can be observed, measured and predicted.  We know what happens for general use, because itís easy to measure.  Itís way more difficult to understand what happens on a quantum level, which is scientists have to interpret tiny flashes of energy released from smashing sub atomic particles together under Switzerland.

But you are ignoring the fact that we also have a very good working knowledge of how gas pressure affects things, and quite frankly itís just not the way you describe.

Funny thing is gravity is the least of my issues with the flat earth idea.  If you just said thereís some unknown force that pulls things down and we donít know what it is yet, I wouldnít really have much to say against it. At least compared to lots of other problems I see with the flat earth. But attempts to explain it using other well known principles, like pressure or acceleration just seem to cause more problems than they solve.

Edit

OK, your explanation of Den Pressure probably deserves a more in depth answer than ďit doesnít work like thatĒ.

I see 3 immediate problems with this explanation:

1.  Pressure against a solid object acts in all directions, not just down. 

2.  The force on an object due to pressure is absolutely dependent on surface area.  Thatís why the units of pressure are N/m2 (or lbf/in2 if you prefer the archaic US system).  Or to rearrange, the force is the pressure x the surface area.

3.  If displacement of the air above the plate was so important, why donít we see a change of weight if we raise it a metre or so?  Thatís far more of difference in air above the plate than the 2 inches displaced due to its thickness.



« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 01:01:53 PM by Unconvinced »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2202 on: December 05, 2018, 12:55:52 PM »
Sceptimatic, how does a high altitude helium balloon work with denpressure?  I understand why it gets bigger and bigger until it pops in RET, but having some difficulty understanding why this would happen with denpressure.
Explain why it gets bigger and bigger.
Start from scratch and tell me what's happening that makes it go higher and get larger.

Explain what causes it.
Once you've done this I'll explain how it works from my model.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2203 on: December 05, 2018, 01:06:51 PM »
Thereís nothing strange about understanding how gravity works on a practical level without fully understanding how it works on a quantum level.
There's plenty strange about understanding how so called gravity works. Nobody understands it because it's made up nonsense in my opinion.

Quote from: Unconvinced
Scientific understanding is based on what can be observed, measured and predicted.  We know what happens for general use, because itís easy to measure.
Tell me how you measure gravity.
I don't mean a simple 9.8ms/s. How do you measure gravity as a force or whatever it's supposed to be.
What instrument is used and how does that instrument work?

Quote from: Unconvinced
  Itís way more difficult to understand what happens on a quantum level, which is scientists have to interpret tiny flashes of energy released from smashing sub atomic particles together under Switzerland.
Underground in Switzerland. You've never seen it but you accept it.
Quote from: Unconvinced
But you are ignoring the fact that we also have a very good working knowledge of how gas pressure affects things, and quite frankly itís just not the way you describe.
Maybe because I'm describing my model.

Quote from: Unconvinced
Funny thing is gravity is the least of my issues with the flat earth idea. If you just said thereís some unknown force that pulls things down and we donít know what it is yet, I wouldnít really have much to say against it. At least compared to lots of other problems I see with the flat earth. But attempts to explain it using other well known principles, like pressure or acceleration just seem to cause more problems than they solve.
Funny that because that's exactly what you're told to accept for your global Earth.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2204 on: December 05, 2018, 06:12:16 PM »
Sceptimatic, how does a high altitude helium balloon work with denpressure?  I understand why it gets bigger and bigger until it pops in RET, but having some difficulty understanding why this would happen with denpressure.
Explain why it gets bigger and bigger.
Start from scratch and tell me what's happening that makes it go higher and get larger.

Explain what causes it.
Once you've done this I'll explain how it works from my model.

Ok, well, a balloon is filled with helium and sealed.  As long as the helium inside the balloon plus the balloon weighs less then the air the balloon displaces, the balloon will float and rise.
We watch them fly into the sky...  There are two constraints to how high the balloon will go: the strength of the balloon, and Archimedes principle. When the balloon ascends, the pressure of the surrounding air drops while the helium inside expands. The balloon pops when it cannot stretch any farther or the balloon will stop rising if the density inside the balloon matches the outside atmospheric pressure and he balloon will slowly fall as helium escapes the balloon.

This is a video showing this...





*

Stash

  • 7961
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2205 on: December 05, 2018, 06:29:35 PM »
OK, your explanation of Den Pressure probably deserves a more in depth answer than ďit doesnít work like thatĒ.

I see 3 immediate problems with this explanation:

1.  Pressure against a solid object acts in all directions, not just down. 

2.  The force on an object due to pressure is absolutely dependent on surface area.  Thatís why the units of pressure are N/m2 (or lbf/in2 if you prefer the archaic US system).  Or to rearrange, the force is the pressure x the surface area.

3.  If displacement of the air above the plate was so important, why donít we see a change of weight if we raise it a metre or so?  Thatís far more of difference in air above the plate than the 2 inches displaced due to its thickness.

I'm hung up on #1 & #3. Especially #1: My limited understanding of denpressure makes it seem, to me, that objects can float.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2206 on: December 06, 2018, 01:50:44 AM »
Sceptimatic, how does a high altitude helium balloon work with denpressure?  I understand why it gets bigger and bigger until it pops in RET, but having some difficulty understanding why this would happen with denpressure.
Explain why it gets bigger and bigger.
Start from scratch and tell me what's happening that makes it go higher and get larger.

Explain what causes it.
Once you've done this I'll explain how it works from my model.

Ok, well, a balloon is filled with helium and sealed.  As long as the helium inside the balloon plus the balloon weighs less then the air the balloon displaces, the balloon will float and rise.
We watch them fly into the sky...  There are two constraints to how high the balloon will go: the strength of the balloon, and Archimedes principle. When the balloon ascends, the pressure of the surrounding air drops while the helium inside expands. The balloon pops when it cannot stretch any farther or the balloon will stop rising if the density inside the balloon matches the outside atmospheric pressure and he balloon will slowly fall as helium escapes the balloon.

This is a video showing this...


Can you explain why it's doing this from bottom to top?
Give me the basics of the basics to ensure I'm understanding the global Earth view on it, or the view that you accept.
I've seen the video but I want to know why you think the helium does what it does against the atmosphere and why the balloon bursts as it gets higher.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2207 on: December 06, 2018, 01:53:13 AM »
OK, your explanation of Den Pressure probably deserves a more in depth answer than ďit doesnít work like thatĒ.

I see 3 immediate problems with this explanation:

1.  Pressure against a solid object acts in all directions, not just down. 

2.  The force on an object due to pressure is absolutely dependent on surface area.  Thatís why the units of pressure are N/m2 (or lbf/in2 if you prefer the archaic US system).  Or to rearrange, the force is the pressure x the surface area.

3.  If displacement of the air above the plate was so important, why donít we see a change of weight if we raise it a metre or so?  Thatís far more of difference in air above the plate than the 2 inches displaced due to its thickness.

I'm hung up on #1 & #3. Especially #1: My limited understanding of denpressure makes it seem, to me, that objects can float.
Objects can float in denpressure. Or what we deem as floating.
The helium/hydrogen, warm air balloons etc show us this.
It's just a case of understanding why in the global model and why in my model.


*

Stash

  • 7961
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2208 on: December 06, 2018, 02:34:20 AM »
OK, your explanation of Den Pressure probably deserves a more in depth answer than ďit doesnít work like thatĒ.

I see 3 immediate problems with this explanation:

1.  Pressure against a solid object acts in all directions, not just down. 

2.  The force on an object due to pressure is absolutely dependent on surface area.  Thatís why the units of pressure are N/m2 (or lbf/in2 if you prefer the archaic US system).  Or to rearrange, the force is the pressure x the surface area.

3.  If displacement of the air above the plate was so important, why donít we see a change of weight if we raise it a metre or so?  Thatís far more of difference in air above the plate than the 2 inches displaced due to its thickness.

I'm hung up on #1 & #3. Especially #1: My limited understanding of denpressure makes it seem, to me, that objects can float.
Objects can float in denpressure. Or what we deem as floating.
The helium/hydrogen, warm air balloons etc show us this.
It's just a case of understanding why in the global model and why in my model.

I'm thinking more like the slab of steel that's been mentioned. If I lift it up off the ground, wouldn't the air pressure apply such equally all around it, top, bottom, side to side. I could then let go of it and it would just hover?
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2209 on: December 06, 2018, 02:51:05 AM »
Thereís nothing strange about understanding how gravity works on a practical level without fully understanding how it works on a quantum level.
There's plenty strange about understanding how so called gravity works. Nobody understands it because it's made up nonsense in my opinion.

Quote from: Unconvinced
Scientific understanding is based on what can be observed, measured and predicted.  We know what happens for general use, because itís easy to measure.
Tell me how you measure gravity.
I don't mean a simple 9.8ms/s. How do you measure gravity as a force or whatever it's supposed to be.
What instrument is used and how does that instrument work?

Quote from: Unconvinced
  Itís way more difficult to understand what happens on a quantum level, which is scientists have to interpret tiny flashes of energy released from smashing sub atomic particles together under Switzerland.
Underground in Switzerland. You've never seen it but you accept it.
Quote from: Unconvinced
But you are ignoring the fact that we also have a very good working knowledge of how gas pressure affects things, and quite frankly itís just not the way you describe.
Maybe because I'm describing my model.

Quote from: Unconvinced
Funny thing is gravity is the least of my issues with the flat earth idea. If you just said thereís some unknown force that pulls things down and we donít know what it is yet, I wouldnít really have much to say against it. At least compared to lots of other problems I see with the flat earth. But attempts to explain it using other well known principles, like pressure or acceleration just seem to cause more problems than they solve.
Funny that because that's exactly what you're told to accept for your global Earth.

1. You are entitled to your opinion.

2. Gravity is measured on earth by a device with the staggering original name:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

3.  You donít know if Iíve visited CERN or not. 

4.  You told me earlier that things basically work the same on your model.  Make up your mind.  Do you account for the real world physical mechanisms I deal with daily or not?

5.  No.  On a basic level, mass attracts mass.  This explains not only weight and objects falling, but the apparent motion of the sun, moon, planets, their moons, tides, etc.  all of which is predictable, can be calculated and matches obvservations.  It also explains why the earth should be spherical and gives us a good working explanation of how the solar formed in the first place.

In comparison no flat earth ďmodelĒ so far can even say where the sun is in the sky for a given time and location, let alone explain why it moves.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2210 on: December 06, 2018, 03:05:42 AM »
OK, your explanation of Den Pressure probably deserves a more in depth answer than ďit doesnít work like thatĒ.

I see 3 immediate problems with this explanation:

1.  Pressure against a solid object acts in all directions, not just down. 

2.  The force on an object due to pressure is absolutely dependent on surface area.  Thatís why the units of pressure are N/m2 (or lbf/in2 if you prefer the archaic US system).  Or to rearrange, the force is the pressure x the surface area.

3.  If displacement of the air above the plate was so important, why donít we see a change of weight if we raise it a metre or so?  Thatís far more of difference in air above the plate than the 2 inches displaced due to its thickness.

I'm hung up on #1 & #3. Especially #1: My limited understanding of denpressure makes it seem, to me, that objects can float.
Objects can float in denpressure. Or what we deem as floating.
The helium/hydrogen, warm air balloons etc show us this.
It's just a case of understanding why in the global model and why in my model.

I'm thinking more like the slab of steel that's been mentioned. If I lift it up off the ground, wouldn't the air pressure apply such equally all around it, top, bottom, side to side. I could then let go of it and it would just hover?
Yes but you are forgetting the actual steel plate displacement of that atmosphere. That's the key.

You see, the atmosphere is being pushed into by the steel plate and also your energy.
In doing so the atmosphere is pushing back onto it and you and around it and under it, as you say.

The reason why it wouldn't float, as you say, is due to the actual steel plate density overcoming below atmospheric resistance aided by above atmospheric push down and squeeze down.

Minimize that atmospheric push down whilst leaving the atmospheric push up will create the floating you mention.

To give you a crude idea of a proof for it is to use the upturned glass full of water and the beer mat cover.
You hold onto the upturned glass and the beer mat holds back the water and also the beer mat itself is stuck to the rim of the glass.

Think of the beer mat as your steel plate.
Why doesn't the beer mat and the water just fall to the ground?

The answer is because you stopped the atmosphere from above from pushing/squeezing the water against the beer mat to overcome the denser atmosphere under it that is pushing up against it.

Why?
Because the small amount of atmosphere that is left inside the glass above the water is not sufficient to push that water against the mass of atmosphere under it and the beer mat.

You see, the glass itself is doing much of the displacing but you have hold of it and have created an imbalance.



?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2211 on: December 06, 2018, 04:48:23 AM »
Sceptimatic, how does a high altitude helium balloon work with denpressure?  I understand why it gets bigger and bigger until it pops in RET, but having some difficulty understanding why this would happen with denpressure.
Explain why it gets bigger and bigger.
Start from scratch and tell me what's happening that makes it go higher and get larger.

Explain what causes it.
Once you've done this I'll explain how it works from my model.

Ok, well, a balloon is filled with helium and sealed.  As long as the helium inside the balloon plus the balloon weighs less then the air the balloon displaces, the balloon will float and rise.
We watch them fly into the sky...  There are two constraints to how high the balloon will go: the strength of the balloon, and Archimedes principle. When the balloon ascends, the pressure of the surrounding air drops while the helium inside expands. The balloon pops when it cannot stretch any farther or the balloon will stop rising if the density inside the balloon matches the outside atmospheric pressure and he balloon will slowly fall as helium escapes the balloon.

This is a video showing this...


Can you explain why it's doing this from bottom to top?
Give me the basics of the basics to ensure I'm understanding the global Earth view on it, or the view that you accept.
I've seen the video but I want to know why you think the helium does what it does against the atmosphere and why the balloon bursts as it gets higher.

The balloon is expanding as the atmospheric pressure decreases with elevation.  Or I look at it like an equation with pressure inside the balloon attempting to equal the outside pressure with the balloon material in between.      As it gets very high, the strength of the balloon canít hold the interior pressure any longer and it bursts.  The helium molecules did not increase in number inside the balloon, those molecules inside the balloon were static or decreasing if any escape through the balloon.   This is my basic understanding of what is happening.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2212 on: December 06, 2018, 05:02:20 AM »

1. You are entitled to your opinion.
And you are entitled to yours whether I disagree or not.

Quote from: Unconvinced
2. Gravity is measured on earth by a device with the staggering original name:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter
Yep. Can you tell me in your basic of basic terms how it works.
I'll make it easy for you.
Imagine you have one in your possession.
Tell me what you would use it for and how the readings would show you gravity and by what means the meter measures.
For instance: A tyre pressure gauge measures air pressure in a tyre.
So what does a gravimeter do and how would you use it and what causes it to work?

Quote from: Unconvinced
3.  You donít know if Iíve visited CERN or not. 
You're right, I don't know so I'll just put this to you so you understand my stance.
I don't believe it exists in how they tell us.
I do believe there is a gimmick built for the specific purpose of duping people. A small portion with a no further access security carry on for the supposed rest of it.
That's what I think. I don;t know for certain.
So basically, what I'm saying is, if you have been then only you know this between us and if you argue that you've seen it all in all its supposed glory then you will know I won't accept it, because I don;t believe it and obviously I will not believe you.
Don't take offence at that. It's not personal. I'm dealing with a forum persona, as you are.

I could lay claim to anything if we did play that game, so leave it at me not knowing for sure whether you have or have not been to CERN.


Quote from: Unconvinced
4.  You told me earlier that things basically work the same on your model.  Make up your mind.  Do you account for the real world physical mechanisms I deal with daily or not?
I said my model ios the same as how the world as we know it, works.
Basically denpressure easily caters for the known world and also my theory of the hidden (from us) potential, true Earth.


Quote from: Unconvinced
5.  No.  On a basic level, mass attracts mass.  This explains not only weight and objects falling, but the apparent motion of the sun, moon, planets, their moons, tides, etc.
  all of which is predictable, can be calculated and matches obvservations.
Too easy to say and literally unprovable unless people adhere to obscure so called workings of people and so called working experiments that are far from convincing.

Quote from: Unconvinced
It also explains why the earth should be spherical and gives us a good working explanation of how the solar formed in the first place.
Of course it does, as a story. As a so called scientific musing. It does not represent anything like reality in my book or the book that's wrote for us.
It's just gobbledegook fantasy as far as I'm concerned, because there's no potential reality that comes from 90% of it.


Quote from: Unconvinced
In comparison no flat earth ďmodelĒ so far can even say where the sun is in the sky for a given time and location, let alone explain why it moves.
I can.
It's not in the sky as a real body. It's a refection.
The real sun is in the centre of this Earth in my hypothesis.

Look up Jane's comprendium to get a small gist of it.
Look through some topics on it from me to give you a further insight.
I won't explain it in this thread.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2213 on: December 06, 2018, 05:59:58 AM »
The balloon is expanding as the atmospheric pressure decreases with elevation.  Or I look at it like an equation with pressure inside the balloon attempting to equal the outside pressure with the balloon material in between.      As it gets very high, the strength of the balloon canít hold the interior pressure any longer and it bursts.  The helium molecules did not increase in number inside the balloon, those molecules inside the balloon were static or decreasing if any escape through the balloon.   This is my basic understanding of what is happening.
Ok.

Have you ever tried to push a football to the bottom of a bath?
It's difficult to do, isn't it?

The water simply crushes the ball back up as you try to push it down.
If you had a massive amount of water like a deepish sea that you could mechanically push that ball into, you would notice the ball would become smaller and smaller as it's being pushed down.
We know water is much more dense and tightly packed than atmosphere, so we know the atmosphere trapped in the ball will be compressed much more until it becomes equalised with the water pressure...assuming the ball did not fall apart and lose its air.

However, this appears to be the opposite of what a helium balloon does from ground into atmosphere...right?
The truth is, if we let go of the ball of air it would quickly rise to the top of the water, getting larger and larger all of the time, because the molecules inside the ball can decompress as the water tries to crush the ball but only manages to crush the ball up.

The helium molecules do the same with air.
They are crushed by pressure and then trapped to be released. Once allowed to be released, they are immediately crushed by the more densely packed atmosphere but the crush only serves to push the helium molecules up.

he very same analogy can be used with an air filled balloon and a water filled ball in the same setting to show why the air balloon does not get pushed/squeezed up but pushed/squeezed down.

A ball full of water placed in the water and pulled under would be hard to compress due to it being full (no air) of water.
Drop it and it will slowly sink.


Think of that with an air balloon in atmosphere.
Drop it and it slowly sinks.
It cannot expand from a decompressed state because it was not decompressed any further than the environment it was in.


Hopefully this explains my side.




Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2214 on: December 06, 2018, 06:31:20 AM »
Iím no expert on gravimeters. Personally I wouldnít use one, but I understand geologists use them for things like surveying and minerals prospecting.  Some are (allegedly) satellite based and used to measure ice mass at the poles.

I imagine you turn it on, press a button and the local gravity is displayed on a little screen.  Thereís probably some kind of calibration procedure though.

Apparently there are different principles, depending on how precise and portable it needs to be.  It could be based on weights and springs, a free falling object in a vacuum, or some kind atom interferometry.  Iím sure you can look this up as easily as I can though.

Where are you going with this anyway?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2215 on: December 06, 2018, 07:07:30 AM »
Iím no expert on gravimeters. Personally I wouldnít use one, but I understand geologists use them for things like surveying and minerals prospecting.  Some are (allegedly) satellite based and used to measure ice mass at the poles.

I imagine you turn it on, press a button and the local gravity is displayed on a little screen.  Thereís probably some kind of calibration procedure though.

Apparently there are different principles, depending on how precise and portable it needs to be.  It could be based on weights and springs, a free falling object in a vacuum, or some kind atom interferometry.  Iím sure you can look this up as easily as I can though.

Where are you going with this anyway?
I'm not really going anywhere with it other than to let you see that you're following something that you're unsure of but accept as a mainstream modus operandi, kind of thing.

Of course you're welcome to that but all I'm trying to say is, this stuff could be using simple reality like local atmospheric pressures and such, only in more intricate settings on this supposed gravimeter.

Let's be honest. A flat surface or a hilly surface or raised land surface from sea level, etc, are all going to give out readings that can be passed off as some kind of gravity change and such.

I'm simply saying it's much simpler using denpressure that gives out a potential reality of Earth rather than what's made up in mainstream. In my opinion, of course.

*

Stash

  • 7961
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2216 on: December 06, 2018, 02:12:56 PM »
OK, your explanation of Den Pressure probably deserves a more in depth answer than ďit doesnít work like thatĒ.

I see 3 immediate problems with this explanation:

1.  Pressure against a solid object acts in all directions, not just down. 

2.  The force on an object due to pressure is absolutely dependent on surface area.  Thatís why the units of pressure are N/m2 (or lbf/in2 if you prefer the archaic US system).  Or to rearrange, the force is the pressure x the surface area.

3.  If displacement of the air above the plate was so important, why donít we see a change of weight if we raise it a metre or so?  Thatís far more of difference in air above the plate than the 2 inches displaced due to its thickness.

I'm hung up on #1 & #3. Especially #1: My limited understanding of denpressure makes it seem, to me, that objects can float.
Objects can float in denpressure. Or what we deem as floating.
The helium/hydrogen, warm air balloons etc show us this.
It's just a case of understanding why in the global model and why in my model.

I'm thinking more like the slab of steel that's been mentioned. If I lift it up off the ground, wouldn't the air pressure apply such equally all around it, top, bottom, side to side. I could then let go of it and it would just hover?

Yes but you are forgetting the actual steel plate displacement of that atmosphere. That's the key.

You see, the atmosphere is being pushed into by the steel plate and also your energy.
In doing so the atmosphere is pushing back onto it and you and around it and under it, as you say.

The reason why it wouldn't float, as you say, is due to the actual steel plate density overcoming below atmospheric resistance aided by above atmospheric push down and squeeze down.

Minimize that atmospheric push down whilst leaving the atmospheric push up will create the floating you mention.

So, in essence, the slab of steel, due to it's porosity, soaks up up the atmosphere like a sponge, making it heavier than the atmospheric pressure all around it, so it falls?
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2217 on: December 06, 2018, 02:49:48 PM »


So, in essence, the slab of steel, due to it's porosity, soaks up up the atmosphere like a sponge, making it heavier than the atmospheric pressure all around it, so it falls?
After all this effort and you just take no notice whatsoever.
Don't bother going any further, you've got little chance of grasping any of it unless you've done this deliberately.


*

Stash

  • 7961
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2218 on: December 06, 2018, 03:03:20 PM »


So, in essence, the slab of steel, due to it's porosity, soaks up up the atmosphere like a sponge, making it heavier than the atmospheric pressure all around it, so it falls?
After all this effort and you just take no notice whatsoever.
Don't bother going any further, you've got little chance of grasping any of it unless you've done this deliberately.

Huh, I actually thought my statement was kind of in the ballpark. Apparently not.

I was referencing "The reason why it wouldn't float, as you say, is due to the actual steel plate density overcoming below atmospheric resistance aided by above atmospheric push down and squeeze down."

I couldn't think of a reason why the steel plate was overcoming the atmospheric resistance just below. As I was suspecting that atmospheric resistance pushes on all sides, in short there's no dominant squeeze or push of 'down', it's just a squeeze/push from all directions.

So, I thought that maybe this density/volume/porosity thing you propose is what gave the slab the weight to overcome the atmospheric resistance below.

We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2219 on: December 06, 2018, 03:09:57 PM »


So, in essence, the slab of steel, due to it's porosity, soaks up up the atmosphere like a sponge, making it heavier than the atmospheric pressure all around it, so it falls?
After all this effort and you just take no notice whatsoever.
Don't bother going any further, you've got little chance of grasping any of it unless you've done this deliberately.

Huh, I actually thought my statement was kind of in the ballpark. Apparently not.

I was referencing "The reason why it wouldn't float, as you say, is due to the actual steel plate density overcoming below atmospheric resistance aided by above atmospheric push down and squeeze down."

I couldn't think of a reason why the steel plate was overcoming the atmospheric resistance just below. As I was suspecting that atmospheric resistance pushes on all sides, in short there's no dominant squeeze or push of 'down', it's just a squeeze/push from all directions.

So, I thought that maybe this density/volume/porosity thing you propose is what gave the slab the weight to overcome the atmospheric resistance below.
The density of it and the atmosphere the steel plate displaces is the key....not the porosity of it.