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

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2018, 11:19:50 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 06, 2018, 04:03:43 PM

In Jane's compendium it states, "The less dense an object, the more porous it is, and so the more air molecules are inside those holes and the less air is displaced."

I think that's why I'm hung up on porosity.

Yes, read what she says.
You are not grasping it properly. You're seeing the opposite to what's being put out.

Quote from: Stash

In den pressure theory, how do you calculate the density of an object?

With a scale to measure weight and the porosity (volume).

Your theory is so "simple" yet you see how much confuson comes from improperly using well defined words?

I'm using what I believe to be the right way to use those words to simplify reality rather than obscure it as I believe mainstream scientists (?) do.

Obviously anyone wanting to view it from my side have to view it from my overall point of view with that understanding of me pushing aside the mainstream model.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 07, 2018, 10:56:50 AM

You seem to just want to create more and more nested and overlapping analogies that confuse more than they elucidate. 

I'm using one. You're the only one overcomplicating things here.
The situation I described, and that situation specifically. Do you agree that in that situation you would find a force pushing you against the edge?

A force pushing me against the edge?    I thought you were talking about filling a dome with air and you'd be pushed to the metal floor?  And no, there would be no force "pushing me against the edge".

What I'm asking, and you're avoiding, is what is pushing me to the floor?

throwing a dozen different misunderstood things together and hoping it works.

Pretty good analysis of denpressure. 

Which of course you know full well, but are enjoying winding people up with white knighting. 

Because there is a reason the foundation is important that does tie into the rest, it's not as just-so as you're painting it.

Avoid, avoid!  Why don't you tell me how "foundation" fits with the rest, and why I'm painting it wrongly.  Go on, I dare you.   Double dare.

What I'm asking, and you're avoiding, is what is pushing me to the floor?
  Why don't you tell me how "foundation" fits with the rest, and why I'm painting it wrongly.  Go on, I dare you.   Double dare.

Your own dense mass of displaced atmosphere as you push into it using the floor as your foundation to push back against the atmospheric pressure you've displaced.

Quote from: Jane on December 07, 2018, 11:22:17 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 07, 2018, 10:56:50 AM

You seem to just want to create more and more nested and overlapping analogies that confuse more than they elucidate. 

I'm using one. You're the only one overcomplicating things here.
The situation I described, and that situation specifically. Do you agree that in that situation you would find a force pushing you against the edge?

A force pushing me against the edge?    I thought you were talking about filling a dome with air and you'd be pushed to the metal floor?  And no, there would be no force "pushing me against the edge".

What I'm asking, and you're avoiding, is what is pushing me to the floor?

The air. The floor is at the edge of the dome. If you are inside a dome as described, being inflated, and you were against the metal floor, the pressure of that inflation would push you against the floor.
The only reason I'm saying 'edge' is so you don't mistake this for requiring any kind of orientation. It takes place out in space, no gravity, nothing like that, just the force of inflation. It's not equal everywhere because there is no equilibrium and a force actively preventing it from reaching such, being the act of inflation.

Can we at least be agreed on this?

Avoid, avoid!  Why don't you tell me how "foundation" fits with the rest, and why I'm painting it wrongly.  Go on, I dare you.   Double dare.

Because you don't understand the most basic concept yet, how the hell do you expect me to move on to explain anything else?!

Instead of believing that someone has to be trolling if they dare disagree with you, think about the situation actually presented to you, hopefully they'll work as stepping stones.

The air. The floor is at the edge of the dome. If you are inside a dome as described, being inflated, and you were against the metal floor, the pressure of that inflation would push you against the floor.

In the absence of gravity, why would it push me to the "floor" instead of any other direction?

The only reason I'm saying 'edge' is so you don't mistake this for requiring any kind of orientation. It takes place out in space, no gravity, nothing like that, just the force of inflation. It's not equal everywhere because there is no equilibrium and a force actively preventing it from reaching such, being the act of inflation.

Can we at least be agreed on this?

Absolutely not.  It's fundamentally wrong, and doesn't explain anything.

So, tell me why "the act of inflation" (whatever that is) is pushing me to the "floor" in particular?  Why aren't I floating, or being buffeted about by all the air tipping in?  Why am I pressed in one direction in particular?

Avoid, avoid!  Why don't you tell me how "foundation" fits with the rest, and why I'm painting it wrongly.  Go on, I dare you.   Double dare.

Because you don't understand the most basic concept yet, how the hell do you expect me to move on to explain anything else?!
[/quote]
Avoid, avoid, avoid!   

Jane, your entire ramblings about understanding denspressure is based on the purview that denspressure is reality.  You don't look at it from an objective standpoint.  You are constantly using look at it from scepti's perspective and point of view.  That's called group think and isn't an objective analysis.

If you want to argue against a model, then you have to argue against what that model actually says. That requires understanding. You have to be able to look from the perspective of within the model, look at what the consequences would be. Then and only then can you even try to demonstrate that it's at odds with reality.
That seriously shouldn't be a controversial claim.
[/quote]

Hmmm...  jane debates in a very odd fashion.
If this is all make believe then sure.
We can discuss all the fun aspects of middle earth or hogwarts you want.
Im pretty sure all us RE-tards are on about is because you claim this is reality.
Initial premise is easily bunked.
Denpressure needs to be shelved along with past theories like wood contains the elemental fire because it burns.

So, tell me why "the act of inflation" (whatever that is) is pushing me to the "floor" in particular?  Why aren't I floating, or being buffeted about by all the air tipping in?  Why am I pressed in one direction in particular?

...You don't know what inflation is?
Why do you think balloons expand when you inflate them? It's not because the force is balanced in all directions, because it could be going in any direction, it's because there is excessive force against the edges. If you are against that edge, you will be pinned to that edge. You're 'pressed in one direction' because the force isn't at equilibrium, you have to be pressed somewhere, and that's obvious going to be an edge. If you start off against the metal surface, are you seriously going to tell me the force wouldn't pin you to it?
Sure, you'd be buffeted around by the air coming in if you were near the point of entry, but that's not the situation we're considering. And even then you'd quickly find yourself forced to an edge.

Again, not floor, I already pointed this out. This is occurring in space, no orientation, no gravity, stop bringing that into it.

Avoid, avoid, avoid! 

Try explaining airplanes to someone that doesn't want to admit even boats can float and maybe you'll get some idea of why I'm focusing on this one point first. If you're going to object to the blindingly obvious why on earth would anyone bother walking you through the rest? Frankly I'm just praying there's some miscomunnication in the scenario here that I can edit and fix and that you aren't seriously that bloody-minded.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 07, 2018, 06:19:58 AM

I think we need to separate this into two parts. Let's talk about physical behavior separately from any notions of why what we observe is happening. If we do this, we can lock into what exactly where the confusion is coming into play. Scepti, let's try and find an isolated physical behavior that i've listed that you don't agree on.

Things we probably all agree on:

• a metal bucket will sink in a swimming pool if allowed to fill with water
• a submerged inverted metal bucket with (sea level) air trapped inside will have an upward force
• a lidded, sealed bucket (in water) with air trapped inside will have an upward force
• a lidded, sealed bucket with (low air pressure in water) vacuum "inside" will have an (extremely weak) upward force (and be clamped hard to the bottom of a pool by downward pressure/squeeze)
  
• the (water) pressure at the bottom of the pool is higher than at the surface
• the (air) pressure at sea level is higher than at high altitude
• air is compressible
• water is practically incompressible at the pressures we are talking about
• the air pressure inside an open inverted bucket will increase as the bucket goes deeper into the water
• the pressure change per unit height/depth, is more severe in water, than in air
• it would be difficult to pop open the lid of either the vacuum or air bucket while submerged
• it would be not so difficult to open the lid of the bucket if you had first closed it while submerged

There's more I'd like to add, but let's continue after your response to this set. I'm trying to stick to things that are easy to test without special equipment for now.

I've tweaked it a little, in bold.

I'll agree with the first two points with your additions.

For the sealed bucket with "vacuum" or "low pressure air", are we talking about it sealed to itself or sealed to the bottom of the pool? I think it's two different scenarios. For it sealed to itself, I think we wouldn't notice much difference in the upward force whether the bucket was sealed with "sea level air", "vacuum", or "low pressure air". The variation of upward force could be compared between the three as minor (as a percentage), but the total force in all three cases is strong. I will avoid explaining why this is the case with accepted models, and stick to verifiable experimental evidence.

For the case where an inverted, lidless bucket is sealed to the bottom of the pool with vacuum, or "low pressure air", I don't think a swimmer would have a chance in hell of removing it from the bottom with brute force. In that case there is a lot of pressure on the outside of the bucket pushing it downwards, and essentially none on the inside pushing it upwards. The catch here is that this would only work in practice if the air/water were pumped out of the bucket after it was submerged and sealed.

I'll add a third case for consideration. If the bucket is inverted and submerged with "sea level" air pressure and then pushed to the bottom of the pool, something interesting happens. The air in the bucket compresses, and without air bubbles leaving the bucket, some water will make its way into the bucket. You can invert your thinking, and view this as the "air level" of the bucket decreasing from full to partially full. The interesting thing is that no air has left the container, so the same amount of air is now taking up a smaller space. Maybe i went too far, but let's see what you have to say about it.

For the sealed bucket with "vacuum" or "low pressure air", are we talking about it sealed to itself or sealed to the bottom of the pool? I think it's two different scenarios. For it sealed to itself, I think we wouldn't notice much difference in the upward force whether the bucket was sealed with "sea level air", "vacuum", or "low pressure air". The variation of upward force could be compared between the three as minor (as a percentage), but the total force in all three cases is strong. I will avoid explaining why this is the case with accepted models, and stick to verifiable experimental evidence.

I never mentioned a lid. I would mention a lid if I need to go into that.

For the case where an inverted, lidless bucket is sealed to the bottom of the pool with vacuum, or "low pressure air", I don't think a swimmer would have a chance in hell of removing it from the bottom with brute force. In that case there is a lot of pressure on the outside of the bucket pushing it downwards, and essentially none on the inside pushing it upwards. The catch here is that this would only work in practice if the air/water were pumped out of the bucket after it was submerged and sealed.

Of course, which is why I likened it to an evacuation chamber in atmosphere.

I'll add a third case for consideration. If the bucket is inverted and submerged with "sea level" air pressure and then pushed to the bottom of the pool, something interesting happens. The air in the bucket compresses, and without air bubbles leaving the bucket, some water will make its way into the bucket. You can invert your thinking, and view this as the "air level" of the bucket decreasing from full to partially full. The interesting thing is that no air has left the container, so the same amount of air is now taking up a smaller space. Maybe i went too far, but let's see what you have to say about it.

Yep but the issue is in using energy to actually push that inverted bucket down.
You see only energy applied will compress the air against the water.


The thing is we need to get to where we know that atmosphere pushes back against the dense objects displacement of it and we are at a point of using water as the analogy to show why it happens.

People can't seem to understand the atmospheric push/squeeze down against any dense object that also displaces it's own dense mass of atmosphere that overcomes the resistance of atmosphere under it, which is why it sits on a foundation in the first place.
It overcomes buoyancy.

This is about seeing how denpressure would create a scale weight measurement instead of so called gravity creating it.

Placing a scale plate on the bottom of the water pool then sitting the bucket onto it full of water, we get the measurement of the bucket skin. the dense mass of the bucket itself, not the mass of water because the water in the bucket is equalised with the surrounding water, just as if it was on the ground against atmospheric pressure, except for different dense masses between water and air, obviously.

So therefore you get a scale reading of the bucket by the displacement of water by the skin of the bucket and it's thickness.
This displacement is pushed back into the pool, obviously and it's this amount that is directly measured back to the scale plate.

To make it more visual in mind. Imagine the bucket is simply squashed into a dense small block. Let's say 1 cubic centimetre for the sake of it.
This would be the amount of displaced water that would be added to upset the equilibrium to create the weight measurement on the scale plate.

You said a whole lot that goes into your explanations of why you think things happen they way they happen, but I want to exclude that from the discussion for the time being.

Question: does 1cm cube of steel weigh more in air or at the bottom of a pool?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 05, 2018, 06:29:54 AM

If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something that’s 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.

It’s not fictional if it’s measurable and predictable as in the Cavendish experiment.  In aeronautics club in high school we did this experiment.

Please explain how the Cavendish experiment works in the denpressure model.

Mike

You said a whole lot that goes into your explanations of why you think things happen they way they happen, but I want to exclude that from the discussion for the time being.

Question: does 1cm cube of steel weigh more in air or at the bottom of a pool?

He says the steel is porous and contains air itself.
Which we know by chemical reactions to be false.
Theres a whole science behind metalurgy.
This guy is insistant on developing a new industrial science akin to danang changing the airline industries flight nav system.
Dillusional.

You said a whole lot that goes into your explanations of why you think things happen they way they happen, but I want to exclude that from the discussion for the time being.

Question: does 1cm cube of steel weigh more in air or at the bottom of a pool?

Get some scales and try it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2018, 10:03:42 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 05, 2018, 06:29:54 AM

If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something that’s 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.

It’s not fictional if it’s measurable and predictable as in the Cavendish experiment.  In aeronautics club in high school we did this experiment.

Please explain how the Cavendish experiment works in the denpressure model.

Mike

Forget the Cavendish experiment, it shows atmospheric movement, nothing more and is not worth arguing about.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 07, 2018, 03:26:35 PM

You said a whole lot that goes into your explanations of why you think things happen they way they happen, but I want to exclude that from the discussion for the time being.

Question: does 1cm cube of steel weigh more in air or at the bottom of a pool?

He says the steel is porous and contains air itself.
Which we know by chemical reactions to be false.
Theres a whole science behind metalurgy.

It doesn't take much thought to understand that it is actually porous and so is just about everything solid.

It's also about trapped atmosphere.

Are there any experiments that have been done or could be done to exhibit den pressure in action? I guess without it being mistaken for gravity.

70+ pages ago this thread started with a couple of proposed experiments. Are those experiments valid to show the hypothesis is tenable? If so, were those experiments ever performed? If so, what was the outcome?

Are there any experiments that have been done or could be done to exhibit den pressure in action? I guess without it being mistaken for gravity.

70+ pages ago this thread started with a couple of proposed experiments. Are those experiments valid to show the hypothesis is tenable? If so, were those experiments ever performed? If so, what was the outcome?

No experiment no matter how it's shown will take gravity out of the equation.
Gravity is mainstream indoctrinated belief. It's put out there for acceptance and adherence for the general public.

There's enough experiments that show denpressure but the same old story rears up of "  yeah but it only happens because of gravity."

The real joke of it all is, gravity cannot be proven. It just gets told to us as a thing that is provable because of all the obscure so called experiments and observations.

Quote from: Stash on December 07, 2018, 11:46:18 PM

Are there any experiments that have been done or could be done to exhibit den pressure in action? I guess without it being mistaken for gravity.

70+ pages ago this thread started with a couple of proposed experiments. Are those experiments valid to show the hypothesis is tenable? If so, were those experiments ever performed? If so, what was the outcome?

No experiment no matter how it's shown will take gravity out of the equation.
Gravity is mainstream indoctrinated belief. It's put out there for acceptance and adherence for the general public.

There's enough experiments that show denpressure but the same old story rears up of "  yeah but it only happens because of gravity."

The real joke of it all is, gravity cannot be proven. It just gets told to us as a thing that is provable because of all the obscure so called experiments and observations.

I guess there's no real way to distinguish between den pressure and what folks think of as 'gravity'.

So it all, appropriately, circles back to FE v GE. FE can't have 'gravity' as it's been defined. So there must be something else to replace it. But the replacement must explain how 9.8 m/s^2 works on a flat earth, like UA attempts.

Does den pressure replicate 9.8 m/s^2 or does it not even play in that space?

Quote from: Stash on December 07, 2018, 11:46:18 PM

Are there any experiments that have been done or could be done to exhibit den pressure in action? I guess without it being mistaken for gravity.

70+ pages ago this thread started with a couple of proposed experiments. Are those experiments valid to show the hypothesis is tenable? If so, were those experiments ever performed? If so, what was the outcome?

No experiment no matter how it's shown will take gravity out of the equation.
Gravity is mainstream indoctrinated belief. It's put out there for acceptance and adherence for the general public.

There's enough experiments that show denpressure but the same old story rears up of "  yeah but it only happens because of gravity."

The real joke of it all is, gravity cannot be proven. It just gets told to us as a thing that is provable because of all the obscure so called experiments and observations.

Which experiments show denspressue?  And if an experiment allows for two different theories to explain the results, then you need to come up with an experiment that shows that only one of those theories is correct.  If you can't, when there are clearly differences in how denspressure works compared to gravity, then your theory holds no weight.

Cavendish.  And you should look up the word obscure and understand what it means.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 07, 2018, 05:20:13 PM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 07, 2018, 03:26:35 PM

You said a whole lot that goes into your explanations of why you think things happen they way they happen, but I want to exclude that from the discussion for the time being.

Question: does 1cm cube of steel weigh more in air or at the bottom of a pool?

He says the steel is porous and contains air itself.
Which we know by chemical reactions to be false.
Theres a whole science behind metalurgy.

It doesn't take much thought to understand that it is actually porous and so is just about everything solid.

It's also about trapped atmosphere.

Why should it be, how could you demonstrate it is?

Does den pressure replicate 9.8 m/s^2 or does it not even play in that space?

Nope it doesn't. But then again neither does so called gravity.

Unless you can absolutely prove to me that so called gravity does show 9.8m/s/s fact. Can you show me this without simply relying on what you're told?

You see, denpressure is reliant on resistance to applied energy (push).
Denpressure cannot be calculated using a fictional vacuum.
Neither can so called gravity.

One 9.8 m drop in one second in atmosphere does not relate to 9.8 m/s/s drop in low pressure or a so called vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 07, 2018, 11:52:52 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 07, 2018, 11:46:18 PM

Are there any experiments that have been done or could be done to exhibit den pressure in action? I guess without it being mistaken for gravity.

70+ pages ago this thread started with a couple of proposed experiments. Are those experiments valid to show the hypothesis is tenable? If so, were those experiments ever performed? If so, what was the outcome?

No experiment no matter how it's shown will take gravity out of the equation.
Gravity is mainstream indoctrinated belief. It's put out there for acceptance and adherence for the general public.

There's enough experiments that show denpressure but the same old story rears up of "  yeah but it only happens because of gravity."

The real joke of it all is, gravity cannot be proven. It just gets told to us as a thing that is provable because of all the obscure so called experiments and observations.

Which experiments show denspressue?  And if an experiment allows for two different theories to explain the results, then you need to come up with an experiment that shows that only one of those theories is correct.  If you can't, when there are clearly differences in how denspressure works compared to gravity, then your theory holds no weight.

Cavendish.  And you should look up the word obscure and understand what it means.

Show me an experiment that proves gravity.
Let's make this simple.
You are walking with me and have access to whatever instruments you want to. Show my physically how you make gravity a clear fact so that I cannot argue it.
Don't go off the past so called scientists and so called experiments that show nothing.
I want you to explain it to me as if you were doing the experiment in front of my physical self so I have no way to walk away without accepting it.

Can you do that?
As for looking up obscure. I know what it means and it pertains to the cavendish experiment, which means the experiment is uncertain as to what it's showing and any right minded person would agree.

Scepti, I’m trying to focus on identifying an experiment that would have different results if gravity or denpressure so that we can test it. As others have said, an explanation of something that cannot be confirmed or denied is practically meaningless.

Here’s a question scepti: why not try a version of cavendish like experiments? Try to clear your mind of any comments or explanations, and just do the experiment. I imagine cost of materials is quite low for this, and time invested will be much less than you spent on the forum in one week.

Quote from: Stash on December 08, 2018, 12:25:31 AM

Does den pressure replicate 9.8 m/s^2 or does it not even play in that space?

Nope it doesn't. But then again neither does so called gravity.

Unless you can absolutely prove to me that so-called gravity does show 9.8m/s/s fact. Can you show me this without simply relying on what you're told?

Easy, peasy! Drop a 1 kg lead weight on your toe and accurately measure the time the time between your dropping the weight and your dropping lots of naughty words.

You see, denpressure is reliant on resistance to applied energy (push).

I refuse to believe that unless you can absolutely prove to me that so-called "denpressure is reliant on resistance to applied energy". Can you show me this without simply relying on what your imagination?

Denpressure cannot be calculated using a fictional vacuum.
Neither can so called gravity.

True you couldn't drop a weight on your toe in a vacuum either - you'd die first.

One 9.8 m/s² drop in one second in atmosphere does not relate to 9.8 m/s² drop in low pressure or a so called vacuum.

Incorrect!
If the final velocity is much less than the terminal velocity in the atmosphere (and for a dense material like iron, copper or lead it will be),
one 9.8 m/s² drop in one second in the atmosphere will fall almost exactly the same distance as a 9.8 m/s² drop in a near vacuum.
If you disagree, you prove your case!

If you disagree, prove your case.

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 07, 2018, 04:20:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2018, 10:03:42 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 05, 2018, 06:29:54 AM

If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something that’s 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.

It’s not fictional if it’s measurable and predictable as in the Cavendish experiment.  In aeronautics club in high school we did this experiment.

Please explain how the Cavendish experiment works in the denpressure model.

Mike

Forget the Cavendish experiment, it shows atmospheric movement, nothing more and is not worth arguing about.

Your are completely incorrect.  Running the experiment, you can calculate the gravitational constant.  Every time it's run the results yield the gravitational constant.  Further, you can predict the results due to changing the masses used. 

It is clear that random “atmospheric movement” can not explain consistent, repeatable results.  You can’t avoid the reality that the experiment results are worth debating.

How does denpressure allow for predictable results the Cavendish experiment.

Mike   

Scepti, I’m trying to focus on identifying an experiment that would have different results if gravity or denpressure so that we can test it. As others have said, an explanation of something that cannot be confirmed or denied is practically meaningless.

Here’s a question scepti: why not try a version of cavendish like experiments? Try to clear your mind of any comments or explanations, and just do the experiment. I imagine cost of materials is quite low for this, and time invested will be much less than you spent on the forum in one week.

A mercury barometer proves all that's needed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2018, 03:24:30 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 08, 2018, 12:25:31 AM

Does den pressure replicate 9.8 m/s^2 or does it not even play in that space?

Nope it doesn't. But then again neither does so called gravity.

Unless you can absolutely prove to me that so-called gravity does show 9.8m/s/s fact. Can you show me this without simply relying on what you're told?

Easy, peasy! Drop a 1 kg lead weight on your toe and accurately measure the time the time between your dropping the weight and your dropping lots of naughty words.

Quote from: sceptimatic

You see, denpressure is reliant on resistance to applied energy (push).

I refuse to believe that unless you can absolutely prove to me that so-called "denpressure is reliant on resistance to applied energy". Can you show me this without simply relying on what your imagination?

Quote from: sceptimatic

Denpressure cannot be calculated using a fictional vacuum.
Neither can so called gravity.

True you couldn't drop a weight on your toe in a vacuum either - you'd die first.

Quote from: sceptimatic

One 9.8 m/s² drop in one second in atmosphere does not relate to 9.8 m/s² drop in low pressure or a so called vacuum.

Incorrect!
If the final velocity is much less than the terminal velocity in the atmosphere (and for a dense material like iron, copper or lead it will be),
one 9.8 m/s² drop in one second in the atmosphere will fall almost exactly the same distance as a 9.8 m/s² drop in a near vacuum.
If you disagree, you prove your case!

If you disagree, prove your case.

Prove your case.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 07, 2018, 10:27:10 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 07, 2018, 04:20:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2018, 10:03:42 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 05, 2018, 06:29:54 AM

If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something that’s 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.

It’s not fictional if it’s measurable and predictable as in the Cavendish experiment.  In aeronautics club in high school we did this experiment.

Please explain how the Cavendish experiment works in the denpressure model.

Mike

Forget the Cavendish experiment, it shows atmospheric movement, nothing more and is not worth arguing about.

Your are completely incorrect.  Running the experiment, you can calculate the gravitational constant.  Every time it's run the results yield the gravitational constant.  Further, you can predict the results due to changing the masses used. 

It is clear that random “atmospheric movement” can not explain consistent, repeatable results.  You can’t avoid the reality that the experiment results are worth debating.

How does denpressure allow for predictable results the Cavendish experiment.

Mike

Show me how you would convince me if I was physically in your presence.
You have access to any instruments you choose.

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 05:29:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 07, 2018, 10:27:10 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 07, 2018, 04:20:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2018, 10:03:42 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 05, 2018, 06:29:54 AM

If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something that’s 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.

It’s not fictional if it’s measurable and predictable as in the Cavendish experiment.  In aeronautics club in high school we did this experiment.

Please explain how the Cavendish experiment works in the denpressure model.

Mike

Forget the Cavendish experiment, it shows atmospheric movement, nothing more and is not worth arguing about.

Your are completely incorrect.  Running the experiment, you can calculate the gravitational constant.  Every time it's run the results yield the gravitational constant.  Further, you can predict the results due to changing the masses used. 

It is clear that random “atmospheric movement” can not explain consistent, repeatable results.  You can’t avoid the reality that the experiment results are worth debating.

How does denpressure allow for predictable results the Cavendish experiment.

Mike

Show me how you would convince me if I was physically in your presence.
You have access to any instruments you choose.

Measure the time it takes an object to fall 1m. Do you agree a piece of lead and one of copper will fall at the same speed?

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 05:29:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 07, 2018, 10:27:10 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 07, 2018, 04:20:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2018, 10:03:42 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 05, 2018, 06:29:54 AM

If you want a replacement hypothesis for gravity, you need something that’s 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.

It’s not fictional if it’s measurable and predictable as in the Cavendish experiment.  In aeronautics club in high school we did this experiment.

Please explain how the Cavendish experiment works in the denpressure model.

Mike

Forget the Cavendish experiment, it shows atmospheric movement, nothing more and is not worth arguing about.

Your are completely incorrect.  Running the experiment, you can calculate the gravitational constant.  Every time it's run the results yield the gravitational constant.  Further, you can predict the results due to changing the masses used. 

It is clear that random “atmospheric movement” can not explain consistent, repeatable results.  You can’t avoid the reality that the experiment results are worth debating.

How does denpressure allow for predictable results the Cavendish experiment.

Mike

Show me how you would convince me if I was physically in your presence.
You have access to any instruments you choose.

Stop with the misdirection.  You obviously know how the the experiment works so just answer the question.

Mike