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

Who do you think you are to tell me I have "nothing to argue with"?  I DID THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT!  I know what I'm talking about and you too closed minded to face the truth.

You may have done the Cavendish experiment but it does not show gravity to you. It shows small movement and you marry that up with what you were schooled into.
 

This is the problem with all these flat earth theories.  You and people like you won't accept anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion of how your world should look so rather than test it yourself (because you can't deal with the results) you dismiss anything you can't explain.

I'll accept anything that I can't argue against, physically. I will argue anything that relies on guesswork or a so called scientific theory passed off as a truth because peer review supposedly deems it a better fit.
Accepting a theory or theories, is not acceptance of facts. It's merely going with the mass flow that's built up over time due to official narrative.

You have no basis to call the dismiss these experiments because you haven't done them.  You are the one who has nothing to argue with.  That's why out just dismiss these experiments.  You can't explain why they work the way they do (it's fact that they do work) so you'll just ignore them.

I have as much to argue with as you do.
Your arguments are backed up by all kinds of paraphernalia handed to you on a plate. Mine is all by myself. No videos or library books or anything...so yeah, I'm at a total disadvantage and look the fool and the antagonist.
The reality of it all isn't quite that though, is it?

If you want to understand denpressure you do it by sticking to the basics until you grasp those basics. Then we edge forward so you can better argue your points with some genuine ammo.
Hitting me with gravity and Cavendish...etc.... is doing nothing other than totally veering from the hypothesis of denpressure and yet you do this whilst in acceptance of something you cannot explain as to what the experiment pertains to, except to say mass on mass = gravity and gravity is.....

You and all other flat earthers are weeks away from proving beyond a shadow of a doubt.  All FE's need to do is run the experiments, launch your own weather balloons or even better use BoB's gofundme money to launch your own camera to get pictures of the curve/no-curve, or take one of those excursions to Antarctica.  Of course none of you will because you know you won't get the answers you're all so desperately clinging to.

Launching weather balloons and what not will not prove anything.
Flying high in jet planes prove nothing.
Looking out at sea to watch ships disappear proves nothing.

Other stuff does prove a lot, like seeing towers over water to prove level waters but it's argued again and always will be.

I find the better way to aid in proving it's not a globe is to go down the logical route to banish the magical route that the global manipulators took to convince the likes of yourself that you walk about on top of a ball that somehow keeps it's atmosphere in despite it not having any foundation to hold it. It simply spins around a spinning ball and loses helium to so called space....and yet gravity and such is made to argue the logical points made as to why.

Same with water.
It's literally plain and clear and utter, absolute nonsense that any rational person should be able to get the gist of.....if they weren't so scared of going against the grain/peer pressure.

Not many people want to be called a tin foil hat wearing nut job or called a flattard, etc. It's much easier to reel off a few paragraphs from any so called science book to make them appear to know what they're talking about so they get back pats from their global minded peers.

This rant may be a bit over the top but I'm tired of being dismissed and called a liar for things I've actually done; things I know to be the truth.  You have not right to dismiss these things because you have never done them.  All you do is bury your head in the sand so you don't have to face reality.

Mike

Your rant is mild. You could probably do a lot better but I understand your little tirade.
You're frustrated because an idiot like myself will not back down and follow the masses.
You fail to understand that I've had my global stints from an early age. I woke up.
I now think outside of the box.

I don't profess to be correct in what I say.
I'm postulating in many ways but I'm doing it by applying my own logic and by actually seeing what experiments do show.

This is the reason why I'm at where I'm at. Accept this and attempt to learn why I think like this or continue taking paragraphs from books and such and hitting me with them, then getting frustrated when I dismiss them.

Only you can make that choice.

A little tip for you.
Do what Jane done.
She took the time to grasp a lot of it. She managed it because she wanted to look at all hypotheses from quite a few alternate Earth people.
She managed to do this because she didn't bow down to ridicule for wanting to understand it...even though she does not accept any of the hypotheses as she is predominantly like you are. She believes in the globe model to a high degree, yet is open enough to at least severely question it all, amid that attempted ridicule designed to batter her down.


She's made of stern stuff as people know...and so am I, plus a good few others that have their own minds on here.

Scepti continues to confuse evryone by misusing words...

Ok
"Evacuation".
Can you evacuate most of the air out of a pressure vessel?

You can allow the evacuation of atmospheric pressure from a container that will massively lower the pressure inside that container and thus, massively slow down the agitation of the molecules, which are never separated from each other. No free space.

Yes scepti.
DenP is so simple yet every time its picked appart you claim we're opening a can of worms that is too complicatd to get into.
So simple.

Forget cavendish.
Physical evidence - things fall at 9.81
Why are you against this very measurable fact?

9.81 means nothing.
I'm sure 9.81 can be measured at low height and better measured in a lower pressure environment. But it means very little as an Earth size constant. It cannot be proved to be that.

Forget everyones evidence and obscure reasons and theories be it gravity or denp.
He claims he is realistically viewing the physical world in its simplicity.
Then he flat out disbelieves a thing will fall at 9.81m/s/s.
Regardless of reason why it falls.
Easily measurable.

Ok tell me how it measured. Because the way I see it you have to drop something in literal free space. Basically no friction whatsoever.
Where do you know that has this zero friction?
I'll get back to you on this when you answer it.

Easily reproducible.

And this.

Easily repeatable.

And this too.

Forget gravity.

It would help you a lot to forget it.

Forget flat earth.

Need to be thinking on those lines in a sense.

Why does he not believe reality that a thing will fall?
Blows my mind.

I have no issues with things that fall. It's how and why they fall which is the issue and where we all differ in our theories.

He’s just dumb. Back in the day he would say something stupid and then have to stick to it. Like when he said inertia doesn’t exist. He had to claim a golf club created a 1000 mph wind to carry the golf ball down the fairway.

And the whole being a millionaire thing. He was just jealous. Also why he said college degrees were stupid and then claimed to have 22 of them. He then posted a fake picture of one.

I've had your life but you were too frustrated to actually see it.
Jimmythecrab knows my humour. He might not agree with me or even like me but he knows my humour, as do one or two others.

Your issue is, you are full of hell and frustration and you feel you have to prove yourself to fit in.

Let's be totally honest. I mean really really really honest.
If you were as focused on your so called chemistry work and your basic innovations you would not be spending time on here arguing with a clown like myself by trying to tell all and sundry how I don't own a Bugatti or earn a million dollars a day ...etc...and using it all as some kind of " I win...yayyyyyyy" argument to impress those forum people you are clearly trying to impress.


I'll leave it at that because I don't  want to get into a tit for tat with you where it gets into you coming out with " yo mamma is?"....you know what I mean?

So here's the deal.
By all means try and learn denpressure.
Ask questions and what not.
Just don't get all worked up to where you start to get nasty and we'll be fine.


Read this and start from scratch and forget it.
If you feel you can't then let me know and I'll have to bin you so we don't end up down the tit for tat road again. Ok?

Scepti
I sent you a video of a 37m high "evacuation" chamber.
Not sure where your confusion here is and why you keep bring back air resistance/ friction.

And that was a feather.
We could do it with a 50lb block of lead.
The resistance/ friction force will be much much less than the 50lbs.

Scepti
I sent you a video of a 37m high "evacuation" chamber.
Not sure where your confusion here is and why you keep bring back air resistance/ friction.

And that was a feather.
We could do it with a 50lb block of lead.
The resistance/ friction force will be much much less than the 50lbs.

I don't believe the video is legitimate first of all but even so. What's it showing?

A massive chamber that supposedly evacuated to within some kind of near vacuum as we are told.
Can you tell me the time it took for that drop?
I didn't see a timer?

Is there a point where 9.81 was verified?

Also, if you are legitimate then answer me this question.

If there is always some friction, which there has to be if full evacuation does not occur, then how can 9.81 m/s/s be a constant?

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 13, 2018, 09:09:38 AM

Scepti
I sent you a video of a 37m high "evacuation" chamber.
Not sure where your confusion here is and why you keep bring back air resistance/ friction.

And that was a feather.
We could do it with a 50lb block of lead.
The resistance/ friction force will be much much less than the 50lbs.

I don't believe the video is legitimate first of all but even so. What's it showing?

A massive chamber that supposedly evacuated to within some kind of near vacuum as we are told.
Can you tell me the time it took for that drop?
I didn't see a timer?

Is there a point where 9.81 was verified?

Also, if you are legitimate then answer me this question.

If there is always some friction, which there has to be if full evacuation does not occur, then how can 9.81 m/s/s be a constant?

Do you know how to calculate the drop time for 37m and 9.81m/s/s?  Shall we explain?

Do you know how to calculate the drop time for 37m and 9.81m/s/s?  Shall we explain?

Don't side step.
Explain how you get 9.81 m/s/s in an environment that cannot have free space. It must always have friction.
Nothing can simply free fall with zero friction.

So let's get back to my point.
Friction cannot allow 9.81 m/s/s fall. It's not rational and is impossible.

Quote from: inquisitive on December 13, 2018, 09:30:20 AM

Do you know how to calculate the drop time for 37m and 9.81m/s/s?  Shall we explain?

Don't side step.
Explain how you get 9.81 m/s/s in an environment that cannot have free space. It must always have friction.
Nothing can simply free fall with zero friction.

So let's get back to my point.
Friction cannot allow 9.81 m/s/s fall. It's not rational and is impossible.

It is not exactly 9.81 taking account of friction and varies. Not a lot.

I assume you cannot so the maths to calculate the time given acceleration and distance

Legitimacy?
Yes
They built a massive multi million dollar lab so they could fool us all and perpetuate the gravity lie.
Thanks for coming out.

Sure
THAT video didnt specifically mention 9.81 because they didnt take you into account.
But, plenty other videos out there for you to also deny.
Quit trolling.

All boils down to you have a thought and all evidence is skewed to fit youur narative.
Youve providdd the answer instwad of letting the evidence soeak for itself.
Watch a few csi episodes.
They say that a lot.

If the answer is "conspiracy" or "thought experiments" - thanks for bashing my video proof, but oh the irony of hypocrasy.
Wow!
Maybe youve redfined hypocrasy and irony as well.

Quote from: inquisitive on December 13, 2018, 09:30:20 AM

Do you know how to calculate the drop time for 37m and 9.81m/s/s?  Shall we explain?

Don't side step.
Explain how you get 9.81 m/s/s in an environment that cannot have free space. It must always have friction.
Nothing can simply free fall with zero friction.

So let's get back to my point.
Friction cannot allow 9.81 m/s/s fall. It's not rational and is impossible.

Holyshit buddy.
That is the whole point of the vacuum chmaber.
Ok.
This is going no where.
It is possible.
Youre just not too bright.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 13, 2018, 08:01:32 AM

Yes scepti.
DenP is so simple yet every time its picked appart you claim we're opening a can of worms that is too complicatd to get into.
So simple.

Forget cavendish.
Physical evidence - things fall at 9.81
Why are you against this very measurable fact?

9.81 means nothing.
I'm sure 9.81 can be measured at low height and better measured in a lower pressure environment. But it means very little as an Earth size constant. It cannot be proved to be that.

How does den pressure work with parabolic flight, e.g., the vomit comet? Would den pressure exhibit the same experience?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2018, 08:41:59 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 13, 2018, 08:01:32 AM

Yes scepti.
DenP is so simple yet every time its picked appart you claim we're opening a can of worms that is too complicatd to get into.
So simple.

Forget cavendish.
Physical evidence - things fall at 9.81
Why are you against this very measurable fact?

9.81 means nothing.
I'm sure 9.81 can be measured at low height and better measured in a lower pressure environment. But it means very little as an Earth size constant. It cannot be proved to be that.

How does den pressure work with parabolic flight, e.g., the vomit comet? Would den pressure exhibit the same experience?

Well i want to cut you off there stash.
The question overly complicated for scepti.
If he agrees 9.81 can be measured at low alt it seems he has issue that it cant be proven always for all over the earth.
Very well.
Even if it varies a bit, what is the issue then?
Does denP give you a different number.
Maybe something phew related?
What do you have against 9.81?

The Cavendish experiment is a load of old cobblers for predicting an unknown force supposedly called gravity.

People really need to question it but I accept many won't.

What makes you think that people haven't questioned the Cavendish experiment?  It really isn't that terribly difficult to reproduce.

Quote from: Stash on December 12, 2018, 11:35:23 PM

It's a pretty simple question. Not much time wasting required. I'll make it easy:

1) Do vacuum chambers/containers exist and can get to a near vacuum environment?

A) Yes
B) No

No.

Quote from: Stash

2) If A, is the chamber referenced too large to get to a near vacuum state?

A) Yes, it is too large to do so
B) No, it's largeness does not matter, a near vacuum state can be achieved

There's no c) which would be, a vacuum cannot be achieved.

Let's talk about lowering pressure by evacuation.
That's how it works.

Scepti, although the pressure can never reach exactly zero, do you believe that pressure can be lowered enough where it's very close to, and might just as well be, zero?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 13, 2018, 12:58:37 AM

No those things are denied "by people who have nothing to argue" against them with.

But, Sceppy, there are numerous videos on YouTube demonstrating that objects, no matter what their density, fall in the same time when free of air resistance.

But you simply deny all physical evidence contrary to your hypotheses.

No I don't deny physical evidence.
I deny the pretence of physical evidence. There is a massive difference.

You cannot physically prove anything you are saying but you seem to think citing books and video is physical evidence.

Like it or not there are numerous things that cannot be verified personally, but gravitation is one that can be and numerous ordinary people have done it.
I, and most reasonable people, accept the available evidence, knowing that if necessary I could do it myself but on the other hand you simply ridicule all that evidence.

Then you cite Cavendish experiments as showing gravity because mass attracts mass,you say.
You argue that some silly set up that moves on a pivot with mass on each end moving towards another mass over a long period of time....and you call this proof of gravity.

Not proof of "gravity"! Things fall down, therefore, gravity is verified.

Those simple experiments are demonstrations of Newtonian Gravitation, or an apparent force of attraction between two masses.

But the serious laboratory experiments are intended to measure the constant, G, in f_grav = ^{G × m₁ × m₂}/_d²

And, as I've said before, these have been repeated numerous times in an effort to achieve better precision in the value of G.
So they are far from "some silly set up that moves on a pivot with mass on each end moving towards another mass over a long period of time".

If you were the slightest bit open minded you might read GRAVITY PROOF « Reply #109 on: August 27, 2018, 09:56:40 AM ».

That's why I tell you to leave it out.

No, you leave these things out because you cannot explain them and they don't fit into your "philosophy".

It seems you're scared of the simplicity of denpressure and you can't grasp it so you use all kinds of obscure nonsense to somehow back yourself up.

Don't be ridiculous! I'm not the slightest bit "scared of the simplicity of denpressure" because:

• It has no simple explanations for numerous things that we observe, such as a feather and a bowling ball falling at almost exactly the same rate in a very low pressure chamber.
  
  
• It has no explanatory power that could be used for calculations involved is, say:
  • the lift and drag on an aerofoil,
  • the trajectory of a shell subject to air resistance or
  • the apparent weight of an object (eg a diver) subject to high air pressure. Workers can work safely down to "the 165-foot pressure limit for compressed air".
    At this depth, the pressure in seawater would be 88.2 psia or 6 times normal atmospheric pressure. So what effect would this high pressure have on the apparent weight of objects, including people?

So please answer those question by showing how such calculations would be done.

Lets flip the question.
If scpeti doesnt beleive air can be evacuated out of a vessel, can we ADD air in to increase the air pressure/ whatever you define as pressure?

Obviously what im getting at is If it can be pumped in, can it then not be pumped out?

Scepti, it’s not clear to me one thing:

Do you deny that the cavendish experiment does show masses moving toward each other. For sake of conversation, lets forget any ideas why it happens or how fast it happens. Do the masses move toward each other?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2018, 09:51:38 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on December 13, 2018, 09:30:20 AM

Do you know how to calculate the drop time for 37m and 9.81m/s/s?  Shall we explain?

Don't side step.
Explain how you get 9.81 m/s/s in an environment that cannot have free space. It must always have friction.
Nothing can simply free fall with zero friction.

So let's get back to my point.
Friction cannot allow 9.81 m/s/s fall. It's not rational and is impossible.

It is not exactly 9.81 taking account of friction and varies. Not a lot.

I assume you cannot so the maths to calculate the time given acceleration and distance

Forget about who can do calculations and all the rest of the guff.
In bold.
That's all you need to know about the impossibility of 9.81 m/s/s being impossible.

Legitimacy?
Yes
They built a massive multi million dollar lab so they could fool us all and perpetuate the gravity lie.
Thanks for coming out.

No. not at all. It's just a nice tool to use to hammer home the clap trap.

Sure
THAT video didnt specifically mention 9.81 because they didnt take you into account.
But, plenty other videos out there for you to also deny.
Quit trolling.

Yep, they didn't take me into account and here's you championing something that does not show what you are championing.

All boils down to you have a thought and all evidence is skewed to fit youur narative.
Youve providdd the answer instwad of letting the evidence soeak for itself.
Watch a few csi episodes.
They say that a lot.

You're weakening and getting desperate. What's the panic?

If the answer is "conspiracy" or "thought experiments" - thanks for bashing my video proof, but oh the irony of hypocrasy.
Wow!

Don't come out with this nonsense whilst playing the exact same game yourself.
This generally happens when you can't provide physical facts and have to rely on nonsense.

Maybe youve redfined hypocrasy and irony as well.

Or have I?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2018, 09:51:38 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on December 13, 2018, 09:30:20 AM

Do you know how to calculate the drop time for 37m and 9.81m/s/s?  Shall we explain?

Don't side step.
Explain how you get 9.81 m/s/s in an environment that cannot have free space. It must always have friction.
Nothing can simply free fall with zero friction.

So let's get back to my point.
Friction cannot allow 9.81 m/s/s fall. It's not rational and is impossible.

Holyshit buddy.
That is the whole point of the vacuum chmaber.
Ok.
This is going no where.
It is possible.
Youre just not too bright.

Really?
The so called vacuum chamber still has friction upon any object dropped within it.
So I'll say again....9.81 m/s/s is impossible unless you have zero resistance to any object dropped. Zero resistance.
This means, not nearly a so called vacuum or not evacuation leaving just a few so called grams of atmosphere.
It means ZERO.
This is impossible and so the calculation is bogus.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2018, 08:41:59 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 13, 2018, 08:01:32 AM

Yes scepti.
DenP is so simple yet every time its picked appart you claim we're opening a can of worms that is too complicatd to get into.
So simple.

Forget cavendish.
Physical evidence - things fall at 9.81
Why are you against this very measurable fact?

9.81 means nothing.
I'm sure 9.81 can be measured at low height and better measured in a lower pressure environment. But it means very little as an Earth size constant. It cannot be proved to be that.

How does den pressure work with parabolic flight, e.g., the vomit comet? Would den pressure exhibit the same experience?

You are still in pressure, both in the plane and the plane in external pressure, using energy to push into that.
Changing the pressure changes the equilibrium which creates the effect on the object inside.

You are still displacing your own density of atmosphere in that plane, like everyone else is, including all objects within it. Once that plane adds energy (acceleration) into the parabolic flight it alters the pressure inside and creates a pressurised push on all objects in that plane.
Those objects not secured will be pushed by the extra compression.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2018, 09:35:20 AM

The Cavendish experiment is a load of old cobblers for predicting an unknown force supposedly called gravity.

People really need to question it but I accept many won't.

What makes you think that people haven't questioned the Cavendish experiment?  It really isn't that terribly difficult to reproduce.

Reproducing it is fine...but what's being reproduced?
It does not give any indication as to what the force is and it certainly isn't some mass on mass done by gravity.

Like I said before. Go and put a tiny ball bearing against the biggest metal ball you can find (not magnetic) and see if that tiny ball bearing moves towards the large ball. Because the way Cavendish's so called experiment goes we should be having tiny particles whizzing around like crazy just clamping onto mammoth dense objects.


I know I know " but it doesn't work like this scepti, it's complicated and it requires balanced objects."

It's clear nonsense as to what's given out. In my opinion of course.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2018, 07:49:37 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 12, 2018, 11:35:23 PM

It's a pretty simple question. Not much time wasting required. I'll make it easy:

1) Do vacuum chambers/containers exist and can get to a near vacuum environment?

A) Yes
B) No

No.

Quote from: Stash

2) If A, is the chamber referenced too large to get to a near vacuum state?

A) Yes, it is too large to do so
B) No, it's largeness does not matter, a near vacuum state can be achieved

There's no c) which would be, a vacuum cannot be achieved.

Let's talk about lowering pressure by evacuation.
That's how it works.

Scepti, although the pressure can never reach exactly zero, do you believe that pressure can be lowered enough where it's very close to, and might just as well be, zero?

No.
It can be lowered enough to slow down agitation to freezing point but that freezing point is a dormant point still full of attached molecules throughout and if there's an object within them that is dropped, it's going to agitate those molecules, more so directly in the vicinity of the dropped object with lesses agitation as the compression from that dense object is equalised as the object falls until it hits the deck where the object simply displaces its own dense mass of molecules.

This means that there cannot ever be a constant 9.8ms/s, Ever.
It doesn't matter how anyone wants to dress it up. It cannot be done, so the 9.8 is basically bogus.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2018, 07:57:17 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 13, 2018, 12:58:37 AM

No those things are denied "by people who have nothing to argue" against them with.

But, Sceppy, there are numerous videos on YouTube demonstrating that objects, no matter what their density, fall in the same time when free of air resistance.

But you simply deny all physical evidence contrary to your hypotheses.

No I don't deny physical evidence.
I deny the pretence of physical evidence. There is a massive difference.

You cannot physically prove anything you are saying but you seem to think citing books and video is physical evidence.

Like it or not there are numerous things that cannot be verified personally, but gravitation is one that can be and numerous ordinary people have done it.
I, and most reasonable people, accept the available evidence, knowing that if necessary I could do it myself but on the other hand you simply ridicule all that evidence.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Then you cite Cavendish experiments as showing gravity because mass attracts mass,you say.
You argue that some silly set up that moves on a pivot with mass on each end moving towards another mass over a long period of time....and you call this proof of gravity.

Not proof of "gravity"! Things fall down, therefore, gravity is verified.

Those simple experiments are demonstrations of Newtonian Gravitation, or an apparent force of attraction between two masses.

But the serious laboratory experiments are intended to measure the constant, G, in f_grav = ^{G × m₁ × m₂}/_d²

And, as I've said before, these have been repeated numerous times in an effort to achieve better precision in the value of G.
So they are far from "some silly set up that moves on a pivot with mass on each end moving towards another mass over a long period of time".

If you were the slightest bit open minded you might read GRAVITY PROOF « Reply #109 on: August 27, 2018, 09:56:40 AM ».

Quote from: sceptimatic

That's why I tell you to leave it out.

No, you leave these things out because you cannot explain them and they don't fit into your "philosophy".

Quote from: sceptimatic

It seems you're scared of the simplicity of denpressure and you can't grasp it so you use all kinds of obscure nonsense to somehow back yourself up.

Don't be ridiculous! I'm not the slightest bit "scared of the simplicity of denpressure" because:

• It has no simple explanations for numerous things that we observe, such as a feather and a bowling ball falling at almost exactly the same rate in a very low pressure chamber.
  
  
• It has no explanatory power that could be used for calculations involved is, say:
  • the lift and drag on an aerofoil,
  • the trajectory of a shell subject to air resistance or
  • the apparent weight of an object (eg a diver) subject to high air pressure. Workers can work safely down to "the 165-foot pressure limit for compressed air".
    At this depth, the pressure in seawater would be 88.2 psia or 6 times normal atmospheric pressure. So what effect would this high pressure have on the apparent weight of objects, including people?

So please answer those question by showing how such calculations would be done.

All those questions have been answered. What they haven't done is to hand you calculations that you think is required.
The calculations are already there. There's no need to change them from what we can literally use in everyday life.
The only change is some of the nonsense reasoning like gravity and what not and the real explanations as to what's really happening. I'm showing the basics from my side and your head is crammed full of equations.
No wonder you can't grasp simplicity.

Really?
The so called vacuum chamber still has friction upon any object dropped within it.

But the important question is how much "friction" air resistance does it have "upon any object dropped within it".
If the air resistance is so much less than the weight of an object that it can have no measurable effect on the time it takes to fall then the value of g can be measured.

So I'll say again....9.81 m/s/s is impossible unless you have zero resistance to any object dropped. Zero resistance.

Incorrect!
The value of g = 9.81 m/s² only a typical value anyway. Measured values of g vary from around 9.764 m/s² up to about 9.834 m/s².
Of course, the value of g can be measured and often is in gravimetric surveys for ore bodies, likely oil reserves and the like.

This measurement can use precision pendulums as has been done for hundreds of years or by some free-fall methid as in:

         A TRANSPORTABLE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY METER ADOPTING THE SYMMETRIC RISE AND FALLING METHOD A. Capelli et al.
But, like it or not, g can be and is measured very precisely.

This means, not nearly a so called vacuum or not evacuation leaving just a few so called grams of atmosphere.

Please tell me what "so called grams" are? Why are "so called grams" different from ordinary grams?

It means ZERO.
This is impossible and so the calculation is bogus.

Incorrect! The air resistance does not need to be ZERO, just negligibly small and for many purposes, the air resistance at normal air pressure is negligibly small.
If you disagree then you prove it by calculating the effect of air resistance on the fall time of a 10 kg lead sphere from, say, 35 m.
 

Lets flip the question.
If scpeti doesnt beleive air can be evacuated out of a vessel, can we ADD air in to increase the air pressure/ whatever you define as pressure?

Obviously what im getting at is If it can be pumped in, can it then not be pumped out?

Good question, now let's see if you grasp it by this way of looking at it.

Ok, as you know, in an open container against external atmosphere it's equalised pressure. Ok we're fine here.

You also know my stance on the pump holding back external atmosphere to allow the internal air to expand out by it's own decompressing energy.

Ok, so back to the equalised external atmosphere and container.
We set it up like an evacuation chamber only with a reversed pump which now  pushes the air back into the container a little to allow atmospheric pressure to take up that lower pressure that the pump creates.
All that's happening is the external atmosphere is expanding in the pump because of the pump pushing air back inside the container.

I'll make this a whole lot easier for you.
Take a bicycle pump.
You want to compress the air in it so you push down on the lever.
Your energy pushes (compresses) the air into that chamber. If you seal off the other end it becomes a container and you are compressing the air and allowing more air into it because the plunger creates a seal and behind that plunger get's filled with external atmosphere.
If you were to put a valve in and shut it off then bring back the plunger, you can then compress more air in to the chamber by allowing more air to follow the plunger back down...and so on.

Result is more and more compressed air.
It's just the opposite of what's happening when you evacuate a container.

Quote from: Stash on December 13, 2018, 11:50:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2018, 08:41:59 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 13, 2018, 08:01:32 AM

Yes scepti.
DenP is so simple yet every time its picked appart you claim we're opening a can of worms that is too complicatd to get into.
So simple.

Forget cavendish.
Physical evidence - things fall at 9.81
Why are you against this very measurable fact?

9.81 means nothing.
I'm sure 9.81 can be measured at low height and better measured in a lower pressure environment. But it means very little as an Earth size constant. It cannot be proved to be that.

How does den pressure work with parabolic flight, e.g., the vomit comet? Would den pressure exhibit the same experience?

You are still in pressure, both in the plane and the plane in external pressure, using energy to push into that.
Changing the pressure changes the equilibrium which creates the effect on the object inside.

You are still displacing your own density of atmosphere in that plane, like everyone else is, including all objects within it. Once that plane adds energy (acceleration) into the parabolic flight it alters the pressure inside and creates a pressurised push on all objects in that plane.
Those objects not secured will be pushed by the extra compression.

'You are still displacing your own density of atmosphere in that plane'

Density is not a 'something', it is a measure -  divide the mass of an object by its volume to get the density

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 13, 2018, 01:52:29 AM

Who do you think you are to tell me I have "nothing to argue with"?  I DID THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT!  I know what I'm talking about and you too closed minded to face the truth.

You may have done the Cavendish experiment but it does not show gravity to you. It shows small movement and you marry that up with what you were schooled into.

It is amazing how you completely ignore the facts. 

Facts like I did the experiment, took the measurements, and did the calculations.  All of which has nothing to do with I was “schooled into”.  This is actual data directly measured.  Experience, not book learning.

Facts like everyone who does the experiment gets the same results.  IOW, it’s repeatable.

Facts like once it’s initially run the results can be calculated beforehand and low and behold they match reality.

Facts like the experiment result are the same every time it’s run; it matches the predictions of gravity, and is proof of gravity.

The other amazing thing is how you present yourself as being so much smarter that the rest of us...so much so that you present yourself as smarter than every mathematician, scientist, physicist, engineer, etc. that has ever lived.  Don't you think that it is blind arrogance to believe you know the true nature of the universe while everyone else, including the greatest minds in history, is so incompetent they can't grasp reality.   

And yet, as smart and as more insightful that the rest of humanity you are present yourself to be, you can’t understand the basic fact that the Cavendish experiment has been consistent and repeatable for centuries.  AAMOF, for it to be so consistent and predictable there must be some force that over comes the spring constant of the balance.  It must be a force that exists universally and has the same value over the entire surface of the earth.  To dismiss such a thing is not insightful or open minded. 

Regardless of this source of this universally constant force it is verifiable fact.  Denpressure as theory is doomed from the start if it can’t explain something so easily verified.  And, if you don’t believe this experiment is easily verifiable then you deluding yourself in an attempt to avoid anything that could have a correlation to gravity.  You don't realize that ignoring such things will be the death knell for denpressure.

A little tip for you.
Do what Jane done.
She took the time to grasp a lot of it. She managed it because she wanted to look at all hypotheses from quite a few alternate Earth people.
She managed to do this because she didn't bow down to ridicule for wanting to understand it...even though she does not accept any of the hypotheses as she is predominantly like you are. She believes in the globe model to a high degree, yet is open enough to at least severely question it all, amid that attempted ridicule designed to batter her down.

She's made of stern stuff as people know...and so am I, plus a good few others that have their own minds on here.

I look at, and have always looked at everything with a critical eye.  I’m not the kind of person to blindly accept something at face value.  I have to see something work and understand why it works the way.  I’m a pretty danged smart guy but I’ve always found it difficult to learn something by reading a book and listening in class.  I have to touch it, do it, and test it for myself.  You are unlikely to find a round earther as open minded as I am.  Ridicule doesn’t bother me in the least.  I have nearly 40 years of experience doing, testing, operating, and designing the thing that you and others say are impossible.  My difficulty with blindly accepting things as presented over my lifetime is why I know for a fact that denpressure isn’t a viable theory.  To me any theory that doesn’t work in all aspects of reality is just plain wrong.  Having performed the experiment and compared our results to those that came before us is how I know you can’t ignore it...knowledge and experience, not sitting behind a computer screen as you do. 

Of course, you’re so sure that I don’t really know what I know that you’ll never accept the possibility that I’m telling the truth.  IMHO, such rigid behavior is about as closed minded as a person can be.  Maybe you need to take you own advice and be more like Jane.

Mike