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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 824210 Views
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • +2/-2
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2340 on: December 09, 2018, 02:54:45 PM »
Denpressure has direction. There is something special about the Earth as an edge to the dome.

This is what I'm talking about with the dome being intrinsic. Now we have this. How does den pressure have "direction"? Is this the "foundation" thing that's been mentioned? And what is "special" about the earth? Is there yet another "different aspect" that's required for den pressure to work that hasn't been brought up?
How about reading the posts I addressed to others discussing that rather than just asking me to repeat it right after saying it once?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2093612#msg2093612

You mean this:

"In the denpressure model, the movement of the Sun prevents the air from settling down, perpetually exciting some of it, varying based on time of day. In turn, this means the dome of the Earth is much like a chamber as described above perpetually being inflated, and so keeping everything pinned down to one surface. "

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2341 on: December 09, 2018, 03:17:18 PM »
He still has nothing to cause a downward force so still needs gravitation.
You literally just acknowledged there would be a force, it's just small in your typical balloon. So long as there is a fill-in for the inflation in the analogy, you get that directional pressure against the surface.
Learn to read and understand! I only said that any force would be minute aerodynamic forces and nothing that could cause a constant downward force equal to a body's weight!

Learn some physics!

Quote from: Jane
Denpressure has direction. There is something special about the Earth as an edge to the dome.
And that is one reason why denpressure it is total garbage.

You can only get a static force in a fluid from aerodynamic (wind) forces or differences in pressure but go on defending the indefensible, who cares!


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2342 on: December 09, 2018, 03:26:41 PM »
You mean this:
Not specifically, the link was just a brief summary.

Learn to read and understand! I only said that any force would be minute aerodynamic forces and nothing that could cause a constant downward force equal to a body's weight!
Or: there is a downwards force, so long as the inflation-analogue is intense enough and constant.

Quote
You can only get a static force in a fluid from aerodynamic (wind) forces or differences in pressure but go on defending the indefensible, who cares!
If it's indefensible, why do you need to resort to ignorance to attack it?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • +2/-2
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2343 on: December 09, 2018, 03:52:30 PM »
Not specifically, the link was just a brief summary.

You directed me there and that's the only thing I saw that somewhat addressed "Denpressure has direction. There is something special about the Earth as an edge to the dome".

Is there something else that's 'special' about the earth that is necessary for den pressure to have 'direction' and to work?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2344 on: December 09, 2018, 06:00:36 PM »

Learn to read and understand! I only said that any force would be minute aerodynamic forces and nothing that could cause a constant downward force equal to a body's weight!
Or: there is a downwards force, so long as the inflation-analogue is intense enough and constant.

Quote
You can only get a static force in a fluid from aerodynamic (wind) forces or differences in pressure but go on defending the indefensible, who cares!
If it's indefensible, why do you need to resort to ignorance to attack it?
I don't "resort to ignorance to attack it" it's you that is resorting to ignorance to support it.

You say, "Or: there is a downwards force, so long as the inflation-analogue is intense enough and constant."
Who would be silly enough to claim that we could get enough "downward wind" to apply a force equivalent to gravity.
That would need to be well over 100 km/hr. You might be oblivious to that but any sane person would feel decidedly windblown.

?

Themightykabool

  • 13118
  • +58/-80
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2345 on: December 09, 2018, 06:55:23 PM »
Jane says in ref to the dome:

"Sure, it's necessary info, required for it all to work, but it's pointless knowledge if you don't understand the rest."

Not pointless if its the cornerstone to his whole theory.
The reason molecules stack and psuh and whatever else.
The dome is critical and fatal to his theory.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-54
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2346 on: December 09, 2018, 07:37:25 PM »
He still has nothing to cause a downward force so still needs gravitation.
You literally just acknowledged there would be a force, it's just small in your typical balloon. So long as there is a fill-in for the inflation in the analogy, you get that directional pressure against the surface.

Denpressure has direction. There is something special about the Earth as an edge to the dome.

Yes, you get a directional pressure against the surface, but that pressure is against all surfaces in an enclosed space.  It isn't unidirectional, it's in every direction.  When you blow up a balloon, the pressure increases against all surface areas inside the ballon causing the balloon to expand.  That's how gas in an enclosed environment works.  As you add more air/gas inflow pressure at the valve will be greater but once the air/gas is inside the ballon the pressure equalizes across the entire inner area of the balloon.

Edit: Spelling.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2018, 06:49:01 AM by NotSoSkeptical »
If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

?

Unconvinced

  • 4060
  • +53/-72
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2347 on: December 09, 2018, 11:45:17 PM »
As I said from the beginning an object inside would be affected by the flow of air from higher to lower pressure. 

Is that anything like the force that keep us on the ground, though?

I’d have thought someone would have noticed the enormous gale of wind pushing us down.  It probably wouldn’t help air travel either.
Questions like what causes wind, and why it differs, as well as what gives lift, are separate. Do you accept that there is a reason for denpressure to push things in a specific direction, towards the ground, yes or no?

There's no point in moving on without an answer to that.

Of course I don’t. 

I mention wind because you said:

“It's not going to flow around an object and never touch it or affect it.”

That’s what wind is.  Air flowing from higher to lower pressure. 

Go back and read this entire conversation.  At every point you’ve found some odd and different reason to object to or misinterpret my explanation (and the other 3 or 4 people giving you the exact same answer).

Learn some basic fluid mechanics and get back to us. 

« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 11:48:56 PM by Unconvinced »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2348 on: December 10, 2018, 12:20:30 AM »
Learn some basic fluid mechanics and get back to us.
Jane is a mathematician, 'Nuff said.

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2349 on: December 10, 2018, 01:12:52 AM »
If it is all about air pressure then the weight of an object would depend on its surface area.

?

Unconvinced

  • 4060
  • +53/-72
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2350 on: December 10, 2018, 01:24:51 AM »
If it is all about air pressure then the weight of an object would depend on its surface area.

I certainly wouldn’t want to try skydiving in this universe.

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2351 on: December 10, 2018, 02:57:57 AM »
He still has nothing to cause a downward force so still needs gravitation.
You literally just acknowledged there would be a force, it's just small in your typical balloon. So long as there is a fill-in for the inflation in the analogy, you get that directional pressure against the surface.
You're very confused about this inflation stuff.  The "Big Top" would expand when you add more air as the net effect of the collisions of the air molecules on the interior of the tent would increase (as you've added more molecules), whereas the outside of the tent is still in a vacuum.

Any person inside the tent would also have more molecules colliding with them, however that would be from all directions, as the air diffuses.  Therefore the net effect would be zero and they would carry on floating about.

Of course you don't even need to add more air, you could heat the existing air so the molecules become more excited, the effect would be the same.

You seem to be imagining that during inflation there is some kind of force vector pointing from somewhere (the centre of the tent?) to the inside of the walls, doing work inflating the tent.  When you stop adding air this mysterious force disappears and everyone just chills out again.  This is fundamentally wrong.

Quote
Denpressure has direction.
Yes, we understand that.  What you can't tell is why it has a direction and why that direction is "down" and not any other.  Not without resorting to gravity, anyway.

Quote
There is something special about the Earth as an edge to the dome.
OK, but we are into quasi-religious doctrine here.  Sounds like you just want us to accept it on faith, rather than treating it as a physical model.

As I said before, this "foundation" stuff makes the rest of it redundant - things fall to earth because that is their foundation, nothing to do with air pressure.
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.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2352 on: December 10, 2018, 04:10:44 AM »
Who would be silly enough to claim that we could get enough "downward wind" to apply a force equivalent to gravity.
That would need to be well over 100 km/hr. You might be oblivious to that but any sane person would feel decidedly windblown.
Great! You do realise that's not the same argument as "There's no reason for a downwards force," right? If you can show that the force would necessarily be insufficient, go do that! Don't act like it's a problem with me when you actively concede the argument I was criticising and replace it with another.

Yes, you get a directional pressure against the surface, but that pressure is against all surfaces in an enclosed space.  It isn't unidirectional, it's in every direction.  When you blow up a balloon, the pressure increases against all surface areas inside the ballon causing the ballon to expand.  That's how gas in an enclosed environment works.  As you add more air/gas inflow pressure at the valve will be greater but once the air/gas is inside the ballon the pressure equalizes across the entire inner area of the ballon.
Then you get onto what it is that makes the dome under the denpressure model, but that doesn't really matter. If you are against the flat surface, that's the direction it will b acting in. If the pressure cannot equalise, it will continue to do so.

Go back and read this entire conversation.  At every point you’ve found some odd and different reason to object to or misinterpret my explanation (and the other 3 or 4 people giving you the exact same answer).
Alternative pitch: I'm not the one actively ignoring what you're saying. No misinterpretation required, you admitted there would be a force but you don't want to concede the point for... no reason.

If it is all about air pressure then the weight of an object would depend on its surface area.
Actually it's about air displacement, pretty sure Scepti's explained that to you a whole host of times, why do you even bother coming back here?

OK, but we are into quasi-religious doctrine here.  Sounds like you just want us to accept it on faith, rather than treating it as a physical model.

As I said before, this "foundation" stuff makes the rest of it redundant - things fall to earth because that is their foundation, nothing to do with air pressure.
No. Stop clinging onto that, stop actively trying to twist everything anyone says into supporting that nonsense, this is ridiculous. There is a physical reason for the floor of the dome to be special, just like there's a physical reason for the part of a piece of paper you set a match to, to catch fire before the rest of it. It's not because of some religious decision, it's because that's how physics works. For once, can you acknowledge that rather than actively ignoring my exploanations because that's the straw man you want to believe?
This is stupidly simple. You concede that there would be more force from 'all directions,' and then you forget that there cannot be a force coming from the far side of you because there is a giant honking disc in the way. This conversation should have been over and done with long ago.

On your left, five air molecules. On your right, fifty. Will the force be equal on all sides?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

Unconvinced

  • 4060
  • +53/-72
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2353 on: December 10, 2018, 04:46:02 AM »
Wind, Jane, wind.

That’s the potential force both me and Rab “admitted”.

But

1.  You continually say that’s NOT what you are talking about.

2.  There’s no continuous downward wind pushing us to the earth.  Because it would really obvious if that’s what was happening.

You’re just embarrassing yourself now.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2354 on: December 10, 2018, 04:57:20 AM »
Who would be silly enough to claim that we could get enough "downward wind" to apply a force equivalent to gravity.
That would need to be well over 100 km/hr. You might be oblivious to that but any sane person would feel decidedly windblown.
Great! You do realise that's not the same argument as "There's no reason for a downwards force," right? If you can show that the force would necessarily be insufficient, go do that! Don't act like it's a problem with me when you actively concede the argument I was criticising and replace it with another.
Why not when it certainly seems your problem? Static fluids cannot cause a force in one direction unless there's a pressure difference.
A pressure difference can be caused by gravity as in the atmospheric pressure falling with altitude or the increasing pressure with depth in water.

But denpressure supposedly denies gravity so the only cause of pressure difference can be from air movement and so it's not static.

And the only way to get a downward force equivalent to weight would be for hurricane force downward winds - ridiculous!

?

inquisitive

  • 5108
  • +0/-0
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2355 on: December 10, 2018, 05:36:05 AM »
Who would be silly enough to claim that we could get enough "downward wind" to apply a force equivalent to gravity.
That would need to be well over 100 km/hr. You might be oblivious to that but any sane person would feel decidedly windblown.
Great! You do realise that's not the same argument as "There's no reason for a downwards force," right? If you can show that the force would necessarily be insufficient, go do that! Don't act like it's a problem with me when you actively concede the argument I was criticising and replace it with another.

If it is all about air pressure then the weight of an object would depend on its surface area.
Actually it's about air displacement, pretty sure Scepti's explained that to you a whole host of times, why do you even bother coming back here?

He has not explained it.  So everything at some point in it's existence has displaced some air and is now in a steady state?  How is that related to measuring its weight using a number of different methods?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2356 on: December 10, 2018, 05:58:09 AM »
So, short version, you concede that there can be a force biased in the downwards direction, and you want to move on to the question of why it doesn't feel like wind. That's when we get onto the more denpressure-specific physics, but can we please lose this dancing around?

He has not explained it.  So everything at some point in it's existence has displaced some air and is now in a steady state?  How is that related to measuring its weight using a number of different methods?
Yes. He has. A lot. Yes, everything is displacing air, that's not some denpressure-only conceit, that's fact. The more displaced air, the greater the force on it, not unlike buoyancy; that's the central thrust of denpressure. Go check out the porousness everyone was complaining about earlier.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2357 on: December 10, 2018, 06:10:44 AM »
Buoyancy makes objects lighter.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Themightykabool

  • 13118
  • +58/-80
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2358 on: December 10, 2018, 06:53:37 AM »
Jane says
"Thats how physics works".


Sorry no
Thats how scepti believes it to work.
Reality shows otherwise.
Lets all please make that clear.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2359 on: December 10, 2018, 06:58:17 AM »
Jane’s just LARPing. He couldn’t even answer a simple question using denpressure.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2360 on: December 10, 2018, 07:08:16 AM »
Buoyancy makes objects lighter.
I think I've found your problem. You don't read posts, you just look for some individual thing you can complain about, and then forget about the rest even if it deals with your objection.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2361 on: December 10, 2018, 07:09:49 AM »
Yes I do that sometimes.


Was my post right or wrong?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Unconvinced

  • 4060
  • +53/-72
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2362 on: December 10, 2018, 07:17:39 AM »
So, short version, you concede that there can be a force biased in the downwards direction, and you want to move on to the question of why it doesn't feel like wind. That's when we get onto the more denpressure-specific physics, but can we please lose this dancing around?

He has not explained it.  So everything at some point in it's existence has displaced some air and is now in a steady state?  How is that related to measuring its weight using a number of different methods?
Yes. He has. A lot. Yes, everything is displacing air, that's not some denpressure-only conceit, that's fact. The more displaced air, the greater the force on it, not unlike buoyancy; that's the central thrust of denpressure. Go check out the porousness everyone was complaining about earlier.

Short version:

My position and explanation is unchanged since my original reply to you failing to understand what happens when you inflates a balloon.

Actually no, fuck it. I concede, you’re amazing.  Now tell me all about this wind/not wind downward force.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2363 on: December 10, 2018, 07:30:43 AM »
Was my post right or wrong?
Nope, it's right. Just like 1+1=2 in the decimal system. Completely right. Also doesn't matter.

My position and explanation is unchanged since my original reply to you failing to understand what happens when you inflates a balloon.

Actually no, fuck it. I concede, you’re amazing.  Now tell me all about this wind/not wind downward force.
What is the point?
I understand what happens when you inflate a balloon; it does not reach equilibrium immediately. If you're going to argue against that because it means you give on FE model an inch, I frankly cannot be bothered putting up with that brand of ridiculousness.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

Unconvinced

  • 4060
  • +53/-72
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2364 on: December 10, 2018, 07:34:00 AM »
Hey, I conceded.

Please tell me what’s pushing us to the ground under the Den Pressure model.

Apparently there are Den Pressure specific physics that you failed to mention all the way through your balloon analogy.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2018, 07:40:40 AM by Unconvinced »

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2365 on: December 10, 2018, 07:55:24 AM »
Hey, I conceded.

Please tell me what’s pushing us to the ground under the Den Pressure model.

Apparently there are Den Pressure specific physics that you failed to mention all the way through your balloon analogy.
Sceptitank has to invent new physics because current model didn’t fit his pipe dreams.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8820
  • +52/-54
  • Bestest Buddy of "wise"
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2366 on: December 10, 2018, 08:04:57 AM »
Was my post right or wrong?
Nope, it's right. Just like 1+1=2 in the decimal system. Completely right. Also doesn't matter.

My position and explanation is unchanged since my original reply to you failing to understand what happens when you inflates a balloon.

Actually no, fuck it. I concede, you’re amazing.  Now tell me all about this wind/not wind downward force.
What is the point?
I understand what happens when you inflate a balloon; it does not reach equilibrium immediately. If you're going to argue against that because it means you give on FE model an inch, I frankly cannot be bothered putting up with that brand of ridiculousness.

Do you mean when filling the container with air, it takes time for the container to reach the same PSI as the inflow?  Well, Duh.

However the pressure inside the container will increase equally throughout until either the inflow stops or the pressure inside equals the inflow pressure.

If you mean something else, like one side of the container will have a higher pressure then the other and it takes time for the pressure to equalize inside.  Hmm, I've never heard that for a sealed container.  If that's the case, surely there is a measurable rate and formula.  Can you please provide them Jane the mathematician?


Edit: Grammar and Spelling
« Last Edit: December 10, 2018, 08:08:38 AM by NotSoSkeptical »
If "deserving" time was a factor for responding on these forums, then no one would be here posting.

*

JimmyTheCrab

  • 10340
  • +0/-5
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2367 on: December 10, 2018, 08:12:00 AM »
Jane’s just LARPing.
I think this is the case, the stuff about being pinned during inflation is just too silly.  We already know whoever is behind the Jane persona had at least one other sock puppet going.

Anyway, I grow weary of this pointless bullshit.

Gonna find some new pointless bullshit.
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.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2368 on: December 10, 2018, 10:15:47 AM »
Coincidentally, at work today I was reading about water vapor transmission rates in porous materials. Astm e96, provides a way to test porosity of materials. Scepti, how does denpressure explain the variable permeability of porous materials? Try the test method with a material that is nonporous and let us know what you find?

?

Themightykabool

  • 13118
  • +58/-80
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2369 on: December 10, 2018, 11:20:05 AM »
Was my post right or wrong?
Nope, it's right. Just like 1+1=2 in the decimal system. Completely right. Also doesn't matter.

My position and explanation is unchanged since my original reply to you failing to understand what happens when you inflates a balloon.

Actually no, fuck it. I concede, you’re amazing.  Now tell me all about this wind/not wind downward force.
What is the point?
I understand what happens when you inflate a balloon; it does not reach equilibrium immediately. If you're going to argue against that because it means you give on FE model an inch, I frankly cannot be bothered putting up with that brand of ridiculousness.

Do you mean when filling the container with air, it takes time for the container to reach the same PSI as the inflow?  Well, Duh.

However the pressure inside the container will increase equally throughout until either the inflow stops or the pressure inside equals the inflow pressure.

If you mean something else, like one side of the container will have a higher pressure then the other and it takes time for the pressure to equalize inside.  Hmm, I've never heard that for a sealed container.  If that's the case, surely there is a measurable rate and formula.  Can you please provide them Jane the mathematician?


Edit: Grammar and Spelling

Despite scepti not wanting to admit that things fall 9.81 and can easily be measured by anyone with a high speed camera and long enough ruler - im still also waiting to hear if its possible to then walk up the dome since molecules stack and push us to the surface of the baloon