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

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?

From 1 metre, most likely. That proves nothing about gravity.

If I change the shape of one and drop them from a height, one will fall faster than the other.
What happens then?
It gets called out as air resistance.

The it comes down to the nonsense of big so called vacuum chambers and the dropping of objects as some kind of proof. It's complete nonsense.

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

Mike

No misdirection.
Explain what I asked of you.

Quote from: inquisitive on December 08, 2018, 08:33:46 AM

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?

From 1 metre, most likely. That proves nothing about gravity.

If I change the shape of one and drop them from a height, one will fall faster than the other.
What happens then?
It gets called out as air resistance.

The it comes down to the nonsense of big so called vacuum chambers and the dropping of objects as some kind of proof. It's complete nonsense.

Do you agree that the acceleration varies at different places slightly and is not related to armospheric pressure?

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 08:53:02 AM

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

Mike

No misdirection.
Explain what I asked of you.

Why won't you answer my question, which came first, but demand I answer yours?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2018, 10:33:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 08:53:02 AM

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

Mike

No misdirection.
Explain what I asked of you.

Why won't you answer my question, which came first, but demand I answer yours?

Maybe the answer will help shed some light on your question. This isn't exactly rocket science.

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?

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.

Previously you agreed that physics in universe experienced is true but our interpretation was false.
Well measured fall vs distance is a measured value regardless of reason.
So now you disgree with 9.81 too?
You are now disagreeing with measured values?
We re not talking inferred reasons.
Measured.
You are now disputing reality?

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 10:47:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2018, 10:33:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 08:53:02 AM

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

Mike

No misdirection.
Explain what I asked of you.

Why won't you answer my question, which came first, but demand I answer yours?

Maybe the answer will help shed some light on your question. This isn't exactly rocket science.

How is it I should have to convince him of something if he were physically in my presence?  It's not simply an answer to his question.  I shouldn’t have to convince him of anything to get an answer to my question.  It is a strawman and we’ll wind up in a debate about the experiment which will avoid the original question.

Not to mention he made a statement about the experiment that shows he already knows what it is.  I'm merely looking for a denpressure explanation of why the masses on a torsional balance react to a mass placed near it. 

Mike

I'm merely looking for a denpressure explanation of why the masses on a torsional balance react to a mass placed near it.

He told you that.

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

[/quote]
You disagreed, and sure, fair response, but he's focusing the conversation for you. Currently you're talking about an abstract, when he references some part of the experiment you're both going to have different frames of reference for it. It's easy for that to end up misleading.
All he's asking is for you to give an account of what you'd do. Either go the classic set-up, or tweak it to make it more modern, whatever you'd prefer. In doing that it becomes actually possible to discuss the effect of each part of the experiment, and what he would expect to happen and why. Wanting the topic of discussion to be properly defined is an entirely reasonable ask.

Red herring mike.
Dont get sucked it.

Scepti needs to flat out agree or  dispute 9.81 measured values in vaccum tanks, free fall, etc.

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 11:07:40 AM

I'm merely looking for a denpressure explanation of why the masses on a torsional balance react to a mass placed near it.

He told you that.

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

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

You disagreed, and sure, fair response, but he's focusing the conversation for you. Currently you're talking about an abstract, when he references some part of the experiment you're both going to have different frames of reference for it. It's easy for that to end up misleading.
All he's asking is for you to give an account of what you'd do. Either go the classic set-up, or tweak it to make it more modern, whatever you'd prefer. In doing that it becomes actually possible to discuss the effect of each part of the experiment, and what he would expect to happen and why. Wanting the topic of discussion to be properly defined is an entirely reasonable ask.

What a load of BS.  You and Scepti are doing nothing but playing games.  You want everyone to explain in depth to scepti, but when it comes down to scepti providing in depth explanations, it is thought experiments, you don't understand, or your not grasping the basics.  Blah, blah, blah.  You two beat around the bush so much it's pathetic.  Scepti never provides any experiment that provides evidence that denspressure is correct and gravity is not.  He wants everyone to explain to him everything in pain staking detail, but Scepti can't get beyond thought experiments and poor analogies that he admits aren't exact.

Cut the crap.  Explain in detail an experiment that shows denspressure and refutes gravity. 

Saying it does the exact same thing as gravity, is also crap. Even though the end result is we are "stuck to the earth", it functions nothing like gravity, as it isn't mass attracting mass.  Therefore there must be an experiment that shows that denspressure is reality and that gravity is made up.  If he can't provide an experiment, then his theory is nothing but meaningless clutter.

Hell, he can start at the basics.  I've yet to see an experiment for any of the basics of denspressure.

Provide an experiment that shows that molecules stack:

Provide an experiment that shows that molecules themselves expand and contract and refutes the accepted understandings of gas, liquids, and solids:


Until he provides an experiment that can be performed with repeatable results, he has nothing but thought experiments that are counter to reality.


EDIT: Grammar & Spelling

What a load of BS.  You and Scepti are doing nothing but playing games.  You want everyone to explain in depth to scepti, but when it comes down to scepti providing in depth explanations, it is thought experiments, you don't understand, or your not grasping the basics.  Blah, blah, blah.  You two beat around the bush so much it's pathetic.  Scepti never provides any experiment that provides evidence that denspressure is correct and gravity is not.  He wants everyone to explain to him everything in pain staking detail, but Scepti can't get beyond thought experiments and poor analogies that he admits aren't exact.

Check the history of the forum. He's done that quite possibly hundreds of times. You've been here less than a year, he's been here six. So, yeah, I don't think he should be the one who has to do all the work.

Consider it a gesture of good faith. If it's actually worth talking to you, you should be able to answer a question to make the rest of the discussion easier, rather than just ranting or demanding.

Explain in detail an experiment that shows denspressure and refutes gravity. 

Check the first page of the forum for potential ones.
The problem, though, is what even would that be? You cannot claim to any such experiment when you don't know the models in question. That is the point of this; don't go objecting to the concept of learning a model when doing so is require if you want to have even a hope of refuting it.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 08, 2018, 11:47:55 AM

What a load of BS.  You and Scepti are doing nothing but playing games.  You want everyone to explain in depth to scepti, but when it comes down to scepti providing in depth explanations, it is thought experiments, you don't understand, or your not grasping the basics.  Blah, blah, blah.  You two beat around the bush so much it's pathetic.  Scepti never provides any experiment that provides evidence that denspressure is correct and gravity is not.  He wants everyone to explain to him everything in pain staking detail, but Scepti can't get beyond thought experiments and poor analogies that he admits aren't exact.

Check the history of the forum. He's done that quite possibly hundreds of times. You've been here less than a year, he's been here six. So, yeah, I don't think he should be the one who has to do all the work.

Consider it a gesture of good faith. If it's actually worth talking to you, you should be able to answer a question to make the rest of the discussion easier, rather than just ranting or demanding.

Quote

Explain in detail an experiment that shows denspressure and refutes gravity. 

Check the first page of the forum for potential ones.
The problem, though, is what even would that be? You cannot claim to any such experiment when you don't know the models in question. That is the point of this; don't go objecting to the concept of learning a model when doing so is require if you want to have even a hope of refuting it.

It's scepti on an obscure forum v. the rest of the scientific community.

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 11:07:40 AM

I'm merely looking for a denpressure explanation of why the masses on a torsional balance react to a mass placed near it.

He told you that.

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

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

You disagreed, and sure, fair response, but he's focusing the conversation for you. Currently you're talking about an abstract, when he references some part of the experiment you're both going to have different frames of reference for it. It's easy for that to end up misleading.
All he's asking is for you to give an account of what you'd do. Either go the classic set-up, or tweak it to make it more modern, whatever you'd prefer. In doing that it becomes actually possible to discuss the effect of each part of the experiment, and what he would expect to happen and why. Wanting the topic of discussion to be properly defined is an entirely reasonable ask.

It shouldn’t matter what type of setup.  If I place a mass near the torsional balance in time the closest mass on the balance moves towards the inserted mass.  It happens every time with predictable results.

The question is simple and doesn’t need any other discussion.  How does denpressure explain this?  It’s a simple question shouldn’t require me to “convince” sceptimatic of anything. 

Now, as far as I’m concerned you are not part of this discussion.

Mike

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 08, 2018, 11:47:55 AM

What a load of BS.  You and Scepti are doing nothing but playing games.  You want everyone to explain in depth to scepti, but when it comes down to scepti providing in depth explanations, it is thought experiments, you don't understand, or your not grasping the basics.  Blah, blah, blah.  You two beat around the bush so much it's pathetic.  Scepti never provides any experiment that provides evidence that denspressure is correct and gravity is not.  He wants everyone to explain to him everything in pain staking detail, but Scepti can't get beyond thought experiments and poor analogies that he admits aren't exact.

Check the history of the forum. He's done that quite possibly hundreds of times. You've been here less than a year, he's been here six. So, yeah, I don't think he should be the one who has to do all the work.

Consider it a gesture of good faith. If it's actually worth talking to you, you should be able to answer a question to make the rest of the discussion easier, rather than just ranting or demanding.

Quote

Explain in detail an experiment that shows denspressure and refutes gravity. 

Check the first page of the forum for potential ones.
The problem, though, is what even would that be? You cannot claim to any such experiment when you don't know the models in question. That is the point of this; don't go objecting to the concept of learning a model when doing so is require if you want to have even a hope of refuting it.

I've read the topics.  I don't need an account to read.

As it is his theory, he should be providing all the work to prove his theory.

I don't have to provide anything to explain or prove gravity, as there are plenty of experiments such as Cavendish that show gravity working.  Scepti is stating that the Gravity is false and it is actually Denspressure that explains the world we live in.  It is his theory and as such must prove that Gravity is false AND that denspressure is correct. 

I don't have to prove Gravity is correct.  It is the widely accepted explanation.  Scepti and You, since you champion it so much and feel the need to interject your commentary, must provide evidence that gravity is wrong and denspressure is correct.  And to make it further, disproving or causing skepticism in gravity doesn't mean acceptance of Denspressure, as I said he must show that Denspressure is correct.

So, stop beating around the bush.  Explain Denspressure in it's entirety and provide experiments that prove Denspressure and refute gravity.  And what I mean by entirety is none of this I need you to understand the basics BS before I move on and give more details.  I want to see it all from A through Z, with none of this stopping BS.

I've read the topics.  I don't need an account to read.

I'm not talking about reading, I'm talking about the fact you expect him to say the exact same thing for the hundredth time to someone too lazy to answer a straight question themselves.

So, stop beating around the bush.  Explain Denspressure in it's entirety and provide experiments that prove Denspressure and refute gravity.  And what I mean by entirety is none of this I need you to understand the basics BS before I move on and give more details.  I want to see it all from A through Z, with none of this stopping BS.

That is not how anything works. Understand the basics, then develop, then understand that, then once you know what on earth's meant to happen then and only then is it even possible to explain experiments.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2093612#msg2093612
Start there. I don't care about experiments for it, I'm only interested in understanding the theory, the fact that you need to understand that before you can get onto expperiments should not be controversial. My hope's to make it so FE users can stop repeating themselves time after time after time, and discussions can actually move onto interesting points and applications and new ground, rather than being dragged back again and again to the same old tedium that's been done to death, resurrection and death again by people that'd kick up a fuss if someone said the sky was blue.

If you do not want to take the time necessary to learn a model, don't try to get involved in discussions about it.

I don't 'champion' denpressure, I champion not being an asshole.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 08, 2018, 12:53:07 PM

I've read the topics.  I don't need an account to read.

I'm not talking about reading, I'm talking about the fact you expect him to say the exact same thing for the hundredth time to someone too lazy to answer a straight question themselves.

Quote

So, stop beating around the bush.  Explain Denspressure in it's entirety and provide experiments that prove Denspressure and refute gravity.  And what I mean by entirety is none of this I need you to understand the basics BS before I move on and give more details.  I want to see it all from A through Z, with none of this stopping BS.

That is not how anything works. Understand the basics, then develop, then understand that, then once you know what on earth's meant to happen then and only then is it even possible to explain experiments.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2093612#msg2093612
Start there. I don't care about experiments for it, I'm only interested in understanding the theory, the fact that you need to understand that before you can get onto expperiments should not be controversial. My hope's to make it so FE users can stop repeating themselves time after time after time, and discussions can actually move onto interesting points and applications and new ground, rather than being dragged back again and again to the same old tedium that's been done to death, resurrection and death again by people that'd kick up a fuss if someone said the sky was blue.

If you do not want to take the time necessary to learn a model, don't try to get involved in discussions about it.

I don't 'champion' denpressure, I champion not being an asshole.

And what do you respond with, deflection.

I don't have to answer any questions.  I'm not the one providing the theory.  You clearly don't know how this works and have a reading comprehension issue.

And yes it is how it works.  My or anyone else's understanding is irrelevant to providing an in depth break down of the theory, how it works, and supporting experiments.  If you think it does, I'm truly amazed you have a degree in mathematics.

And yes it is how it works.  My or anyone else's understanding is irrelevant to providing an in depth break down of the theory, how it works, and supporting experiments.  If you think it does, I'm truly amazed you have a degree in mathematics.

What? This is a forum. That requires discussion. Back-and-forth. Scepti's not getting up on a podium to give a presentation, he's talking to you and you are asking questions. The whole point is the understanding of those he's talking to.

If you aren't here to know what the hell you're on about, why are you here? Just snide remarks?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 08, 2018, 01:44:47 PM

And yes it is how it works.  My or anyone else's understanding is irrelevant to providing an in depth break down of the theory, how it works, and supporting experiments.  If you think it does, I'm truly amazed you have a degree in mathematics.

What? This is a forum. That requires discussion. Back-and-forth. Scepti's not getting up on a podium to give a presentation, he's talking to you and you are asking questions. The whole point is the understanding of those he's talking to.

If you aren't here to know what the hell you're on about, why are you here? Just snide remarks?

Yes this is a forum.  There is also a topic of discussion, you should try reading it. This isn't an online webinar or school blackboard.  This also isn't the debate forum.  This is the FE General for Theories and based on the topic, there should be a defined Theory and Experiments.  I haven't seen a full theory or an experiment that confirms said theory.  I will continue to ask for both as this is the topic of discussion.

So again,  please provide a full encompassing theory and supporting experiments to test said theory.

So again,  please provide a full encompassing theory and supporting experiments to test said theory.

Well this exchange was pointless.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 08, 2018, 04:47:36 AM

If you disagree, prove your case.

Prove your case.

It's your hypothesis. If you aren't interested in proving it that's not my problem.

But do you ever wonder why nobody (except Jane) takes you seriously?
It's simply that the current theories of motion, gravitation, the behaviour of gases etc have all been verified by many experiments.
You refuse, point blank, to test your hypotheses in similar ways.
Then soon as someone queries how denpressure behaves you accuse them of being close minded and indoctrinated.

By the way, how do you calculate the lift and drag of the wing of a plane using denpressure.
Surely that's an eminently practical problem and NASA are very good at it - that's part of their responsibilities. 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 07, 2018, 12:30:42 PM

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.

Balloons expand because of the pressure differential between outside and inside. This is a force on the wall acting against the elastic properties of the rubber trying to pull it back to it's nominal shape.  If you were inside the balloon you would not be "pinned to the edge".  The air would just flow around you as it equalizes.  The force only applies to the wall because it's an continuous barrier that prevents the air going anywhere else.  Try inflating a balloon with a hole in it and see how far you get.

When you have a pressure differential with no continuous barrier, the only force applied is from air flow, which in the outside world we call wind.  It's pretty easy to distinguish wind from something like gravity.

I'm not sure why you are just accepting that this hypothesis does what it claims to do? 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 07, 2018, 12:30:42 PM

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?

No! You would not be pinned to the edge, be it balloon or metal, unless there was an airtight seal between you and the balloon or metal.

You say "because the force isn't at equilibrium, you have to be pressed somewhere".
Any force caused by a pressure difference on a surface is normal to that surface - pressure is a scalar quantity.
Hence, apart from possible minute pressure differences, there is not net force on an object and that is not hard to test for.
And this is why denpressure and atmospheric push (Wise) cannot replicate gravitation.

All not being equilibrium would do is cause some air flow past you - wind.
You wouldn't be pinned anymore than the 10,322 kg force/m² normal atmospheric pressure would pin you to the floor if you lay down.

Quote from: Stash

Also, a lot lately in this thread is kind of around how den pressure works as, let's say, a replacement for gravity on a flat earth, simply as that. But after reading Jane's compendium on the subject, there's a whole lot more that is required: The dome, the way the sun heats and cools it due to proximity and causes it to breathe, the heat source at the north pole and crystal that projects the stars, seemingly all of which play into the hypothesis. Can den pressure stand on it's own without these other aspects, or are they necessary for understanding it by taking them into account? If the latter, I can see why this is 75 pages.

It can stand on its own and as part of it all.
The major issue is to get the basics in so people understand the extreme simplicity first that leads to what we perceive around us.

Just so I understand, a seemingly super basic question, but am not sure based upon your answer. Den pressure requires a domed flat earth and it wouldn't work on a globe earth?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2018, 10:32:36 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on December 08, 2018, 08:33:46 AM

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?

From 1 metre, most likely. That proves nothing about gravity.

If I change the shape of one and drop them from a height, one will fall faster than the other.
What happens then?
It gets called out as air resistance.

The it comes down to the nonsense of big so called vacuum chambers and the dropping of objects as some kind of proof. It's complete nonsense.

Do you agree that the acceleration varies at different places slightly and is not related to armospheric pressure?

No, not at all.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2018, 10:33:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 08, 2018, 08:53:02 AM

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

Mike

No misdirection.
Explain what I asked of you.

Why won't you answer my question, which came first, but demand I answer yours?

Because you're trying to skew the basics which was my intention and here I am having to deal with Cavendish and so called gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 08, 2018, 08:24:11 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 08, 2018, 04:47:36 AM

If you disagree, prove your case.

Prove your case.

It's your hypothesis. If you aren't interested in proving it that's not my problem.

But do you ever wonder why nobody (except Jane) takes you seriously?
It's simply that the current theories of motion, gravitation, the behaviour of gases etc have all been verified by many experiments.
You refuse, point blank, to test your hypotheses in similar ways.
Then soon as someone queries how denpressure behaves you accuse them of being close minded and indoctrinated.

By the way, how do you calculate the lift and drag of the wing of a plane using denpressure.
Surely that's an eminently practical problem and NASA are very good at it - that's part of their responsibilities.

If you want to understand denpressure from my side then literally start at the beginning and do not move on until you're absolutely familiar with how it works.
You and others pretend you know then somehow twist it into something entirely different until it becomes so skewed we end up arguing against gravity and so called experiments that prove nothing but as said to prove beyond doubt that gravity and such is a reality.

This is what happens rather than people actually looking at the simplicity of how denpressure works to start with.
Maybe it's the simplicity that scares some people. Maybe they're embarrassed to even dare to try and understand it for fear of being ridiculed like people are attempting to do with Jane, even though she clearly states she understands the basics but does not adhere to the hypothesis of it.

You're attacking your very own side because she takes teh time to dare to go down the simple route to get to the meat and drink.

Try it as she has and you just might get a real insight.
I'm not asking anyone to abide by it. Just try and learn it.

Balloons expand because of the pressure differential between outside and inside. This is a force on the wall acting against the elastic properties of the rubber trying to pull it back to it's nominal shape.  If you were inside the balloon you would not be "pinned to the edge".  The air would just flow around you as it equalizes.  The force only applies to the wall because it's an continuous barrier that prevents the air going anywhere else.  Try inflating a balloon with a hole in it and see how far you get.

Anything inside that balloon has to have a foundation to push against.
If I was to put a small block of wood inside the balloon, that block of wood takes up it's own dense mass of the compressed atmosphere inside that balloon.

That means the atmosphere it takes up is always pushed back onto it. It's own dense mass of atmosphere. That's the key.

Think of it the other way.
Imagine you allow evacuation of the balloon with a pump with that small block of wood inside. What do you see?
You see the balloon envelope the entire block because the atmosphere you allowed out of the balloon is crushing back onto the wooden block, all around.
The block is clamped to that skin and that skin is now pushing back into the atmosphere by itself and the block's dense mass.

Quote from: Jane on December 07, 2018, 01:06:48 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 07, 2018, 12:30:42 PM

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?

No! You would not be pinned to the edge, be it balloon or metal, unless there was an airtight seal between you and the balloon or metal.

You say "because the force isn't at equilibrium, you have to be pressed somewhere".
Any force caused by a pressure difference on a surface is normal to that surface - pressure is a scalar quantity.
Hence, apart from possible minute pressure differences, there is not net force on an object and that is not hard to test for.
And this is why denpressure and atmospheric push (Wise) cannot replicate gravitation.

All not being equilibrium would do is cause some air flow past you - wind.
You wouldn't be pinned anymore than the 10,322 kg force/m² normal atmospheric pressure would pin you to the floor if you lay down.

The force is never at equilibrium.
There is always a foundation for any object.
Unless an object is trapped under pressure and can't be released...only then will that object lose its foundation upon release of the energy keeping it down.
Helium as a classic case.
The foundation of any object isn't about that object just being pushed down, it's about the object's structure/dense mass pushing up to compress by it's own dense mass, the atmosphere it takes up, which is where equilibrium changes due to foundation and object pushed against it by it's own dense mass of push into atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 07, 2018, 04:38:11 AM

Quote from: Stash

Also, a lot lately in this thread is kind of around how den pressure works as, let's say, a replacement for gravity on a flat earth, simply as that. But after reading Jane's compendium on the subject, there's a whole lot more that is required: The dome, the way the sun heats and cools it due to proximity and causes it to breathe, the heat source at the north pole and crystal that projects the stars, seemingly all of which play into the hypothesis. Can den pressure stand on it's own without these other aspects, or are they necessary for understanding it by taking them into account? If the latter, I can see why this is 75 pages.

It can stand on its own and as part of it all.
The major issue is to get the basics in so people understand the extreme simplicity first that leads to what we perceive around us.

Just so I understand, a seemingly super basic question, but am not sure based upon your answer. Den pressure requires a domed flat earth and it wouldn't work on a globe earth?

Denpressure absolutely 1 trillion % and then some...will never work on  a global earth like the one we're coaxed into believing.

Quote from: Stash on December 08, 2018, 09:43:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 07, 2018, 04:38:11 AM

Quote from: Stash

Also, a lot lately in this thread is kind of around how den pressure works as, let's say, a replacement for gravity on a flat earth, simply as that. But after reading Jane's compendium on the subject, there's a whole lot more that is required: The dome, the way the sun heats and cools it due to proximity and causes it to breathe, the heat source at the north pole and crystal that projects the stars, seemingly all of which play into the hypothesis. Can den pressure stand on it's own without these other aspects, or are they necessary for understanding it by taking them into account? If the latter, I can see why this is 75 pages.

It can stand on its own and as part of it all.
The major issue is to get the basics in so people understand the extreme simplicity first that leads to what we perceive around us.

Just so I understand, a seemingly super basic question, but am not sure based upon your answer. Den pressure requires a domed flat earth and it wouldn't work on a globe earth?

Denpressure absolutely 1 trillion % and then some...will never work on  a global earth like the one we're coaxed into believing.

We know the earth is a globe from measured distances, satellite angles, angle of the sun. All easily proven.