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

The pump does not act on the external atmosphere.  The pump moves material from Side A to Side B through a Chamber that works as a one-way valve.  For Side B to compress, something from Side A has to enter the chamber and then be pushed out to Side B against the external atmosphere.  As you have said that Side A does not move until Side B compresses, what is compressing Side B.  Side B can't enter the Chamber.  It's a one way valve.  So what is compressing Side B.

Explain what your sides are so we are clear in what you are telling me and maybe I can put you right from my side of the fence.

My first question is pretty short and simple, and I basically want to know why wouldn’t you go ahead and try a cavendish like experiment to see what happens.

I don't know what the experiment proves, so why do it?

My second question is: do you deny that the masses will attract in the cavendish experiment?

No I don't deny it. My reasoning is "why" they attract.
You say it's gravity. Ok fair enough, then you explain to me how you know it's gravity.
All I'm asking is for you to explain to me how you know it's gravity.

  If you deny that, back to question one; why not try it? If you don’t deny that the masses attract, it’s a totally different conversation.

It is a different conversation because you have to know how my Earth hypothesis works to understand why mass will move towards mass on a pivot.

It's been mildly explained, just look it up.

However, forget about that for a minute. I want you to explain to me how you know you, yourself, prove gravity with your Cavendish experiment. Tell me how you did your experiment to prove it.

So how does scepti define displacement?
He keeps using that word and clearly it dossnt mean whatever one else thinks it means.
Good job buddy.

Quite simple.
Any dense mass that takes up it's own entire mass of whatever matter it is placed into.

Simple enough?

Ok forget air.
You seem to be unable to comprehend something you cant see.
Water.
Liquids can be considered incompressible.
But we can still pressurize.
So.
When a liquid is pumped from one vessel to another, are the mocules expandning and stacking but never leaving the vessel??

Give me an exact scenario of how (in your mind) you're setting up this experiment to move one liquid from one vessel to another and I'll happily answer it from my side.

No, not pretty simple. No where in there is there any explanation for why objects have weight.

Yes there is. The issue is in you not acceroting it, which is your prerogative.
Ask yourself what weight is.
Do you agree it's no more than a man made measurement of mass?

You say it's mass getting pulled. I say it's mass displacing the atmospheric environment it is in.
Or is your side a little bit more than  that?

So what if objects displace the atmosphere. Why does that give them weight?

Let's imagine a totally pancake flat ground.
All that's on that ground is atmosphere encased with a natural dome. That dome is the result of stacked molecules to make up that atmosphere. This creates an internal pressure.

We won't argue on they why's and wherefore's of it, except to just understand that there's pressure as we all know.
Up pops a rock. I ask you what weight that rock is. What do you answer?
Naturally you can say, " it's light" or "it's fairly heavy" or " it's really heavy"...
But what does it weigh?
Do we invent a gravity scale to measure it or do we invent a scale that works on pushing up the mess of rock to be placed on top of a moving plate that will record the energy used to lift it against atmospheric pressure it displaces by its own mass that took up that atmosphere and compressed it further by that push into it to use the ground as it's foundation.?

Objects can be suspended from scales, and still have weight, pulling it down, not pushing the scale up as would be expected if it was some resistance to the push; unless the object only pushes up into the atmosphere, even though the atmosphere is all around, which just raises the question of why it only pushes up. So it doesn't seem to be recording a resistance to the push.

Of course objects can be suspended from scales. That object still has to be lifted from the foundation to be placed upon those scales. It is still displacing it's own dense mass of atmosphere which is acting right back onto it.
The scales still use their own foundation, whether it's a wall anchor or a tripod to hang them.
It still records atmospheric push back onto dense mass pushed into atmosphere.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 15, 2018, 12:20:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 14, 2018, 11:35:18 PM

All objects that can be physically/mechanically picked up from the ground have a dense mass that displaces the atmosphere they are in.
Man made scales laid on a ground and set at zero against the atmosphere it displaces is actually already calibrated for that environment.
Any object displacing that atmosphere by it's own dense mass can be recorded on those scales by using those scales as a resistance plate to the push into the atmosphere of the object itself sitting on that plate.
The scale measures that resistance.

Pretty simple really. The scales simply give a man made measurement of the ground pressure a moveable object makes by it's own atmospheric displacement.
No gravity required.

No, not pretty simple. No where in there is there any explanation for why objects have weight.
So what if objects displace the atmosphere. Why does that give them weight?
Objects can be suspended from scales, and still have weight, pulling it down, not pushing the scale up as would be expected if it was some resistance to the push; unless the object only pushes up into the atmosphere, even though the atmosphere is all around, which just raises the question of why it only pushes up. So it doesn't seem to be recording a resistance to the push.

Well he theorises and mind experiments that the atmosphere (irony of him using that word in its proper definition) pushes things down giving them weight.
The reason can be disputed because he choses to believe otherwise.
But.
Physical verifiable actions he refutes!

A thing falls.
It was measured at 9.81.
Come on scepti!
How is that inpossible when you are shown it???

What am I shown?

What happened to jane?

Don't fret over Jane. She has a life and will take part in the forum when she sees fit to.

How come you two dont stick up for each other at the same time?

Jane doesn't need me to take up for her and I don't need Jane to take up for me. She adds input. She's trying to learn out of the box theories and does a fantastic job of actually trying to do that.
She does not need me to pat her back but I will acknowledge when I see effort put in.
She puts it in in abundance, of that nobody can deny.

It's not about having to believe one side. It's about being interested enough to see all sides, whether you agree with them or not. Jane is one of a few who do that.
What seems to be the issue with globalists is.....some choose to try to intimidate her for trying to understand other people's thinking...even though they know she's a global Earth believer, in the main.
This is a classic peer pressure put down but it's frustrating to many because Jane is not easily manipulated and has her own mind which she controls.

The weak one's are those like you who look for back pats from your supposed global minded internet acquaintances by using silly digs to try and ridicule and believe it actually stands you out as some kind of intelligent person.
It doesn't.
So try and put some effort in like you attempted to do and understand what you're arguing before you go into raptures over it.

Sceptis getting gangbanged here.

The words of someone who is frustrated.

Previously jane was left to fend for herself.

Jane's not alone. She doesn't require words to make her feel backed up and comfy. She stands her own ground.
The fact that she does this and the fact that she's jumped upon by cowards and yet is always strong enough to throw them off, is testament to how strong willed she is.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 15, 2018, 07:08:57 PM

Well im just trying hammer home this vessel thing.

You've been trying to reason with a person who does not believe that empty space, a vacuum, is even imaginable.
Sceppy's individual atoms and molecules expand like soap bubbles to fill all available space, be it the whole dome or a "so-called vacuum chamber".

So one atom and molecule can still cause "friction" on a dropped object. Hence one can never even measure g - according to Sceppy.

A big problem is your assumption that Sceppy understands "science English" but he has a different language.
He uses the same words but with totally different meanings so you must learn this, as yet, untranslated language, "Sceppenese".

But don't be bothered by your lack of progress. Many heads have been broken by being bashed on a brick wall in frustration.
Only Jane survives, a testimony either to her hard head or lack of understanding of science, take your pick.

I'll say this to Sceppy's credit.
Others will claim that "atmosphere push" or "density" explain gravity then refuse to seriously the matter further.
Sceppy, on the other hand, does put in a great deal of effort into making up a complete "theory".

I like the sceppanese bit. But yes, you're right, I do put a lot of effort into my theory.
You're smart enough to understand it even though you dismiss it in favour of the schooled version.
That's fair enough...but like you say, it has to be grasped from my side of the coin.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 14, 2018, 11:37:51 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2018, 05:31:32 PM

Well, here is one more demonstration.

All of those things prove denpressure, not gravity.

Nope, the experiment in that video proves gravity.  How does your denpressure explain it?

Pick a piece at a time and I'll explain how.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 15, 2018, 12:20:11 PM

No, not pretty simple. No where in there is there any explanation for why objects have weight.

Yes there is. The issue is in you not acceroting it, which is your prerogative.

I'm not accepting it because it isn't there.

Ask yourself what weight is.
Do you agree it's no more than a man made measurement of mass?

No, it is a measure of force required to lift/support the object.

You say it's mass getting pulled. I say it's mass displacing the atmospheric environment it is in.
Or is your side a little bit more than  that?

No, I'm not discussing gravity at all. I am discussing what is perceived.
If I hold an object from above it, it still pulls down, even though it is displacing (or as you might say "pushing into") the atmosphere below me.

I ask you what weight that rock is. What do you answer?

I would get a scale and measure it.
The simplest scale is a spring balance where the spring is elongated by the force acting on it and in turn this elongated spring resists being elongated by pulling back. There is a linear relationship between force and elongation.
This has nothing to do with the air.

Do we invent a gravity scale to measure it or do we invent a scale that works on pushing up the mess of rock to be placed on top of a moving plate that will record the energy used to lift it against atmospheric pressure it displaces by its own mass that took up that atmosphere and compressed it further by that push into it to use the ground as it's foundation.?

You don't displace atmospheric pressure. You displace the atmosphere, which exerts pressure in all directions. The simplest demonstration I can think of to show that is a bottle getting crushed by the atmosphere if you "suck" the air out, which happens the same regardless of the orientation of the bottle.
The only type of scale which would record energy that I know of is a Watt balance. All others work based upon force.

It is still displacing it's own dense mass of atmosphere which is acting right back onto it.

It displaces its volume of atmosphere regardless of where it is. The only acting upon it the atmosphere would do is push it up due to the pressure gradient in the atmosphere (which is beyond the basic level, unless your model relies upon that pressure gradient).
Why should it having displaced atmosphere, which again, it does regardless of where it is, cause it to be pushed down?

One of the only ways your explanation can even begin to make sense is if the rock just magically pops into existence from nowhere, in which case it would displace the atmosphere all around it and have no preferred direction to be pushed.
Any existing object will be displacing the atmosphere regardless of where it is. It will need to displace atmosphere to move down. So if the atmosphere is resisting that, why would it force it down?
The other alternative is to have the rock displace less atmosphere when it is lower than it does when it is higher, but that would require the atmosphere to be less dense the lower it is, so the same volume displaced amounts to less atmosphere. But that is the exact opposite of what is observed, with the density being higher the lower you go.

This is why I say you don't have an explanation.
You are jumping from the rock displacing the atmosphere to it somehow making it go down. There is no explanation of why.

Also, nothing in that requires Earth to be flat. The same kind of reasoning would work if Earth was a sphere with us on the outside, or on the inside, or a hyperbolic surface.

The video clearly shows the feather first fluttering down due to wind resistance.
Then in the 2nd when air is "unpressurized/ evacuated/ unstacked" the feather doesnt flutter at all.
His claim of resistance is clearly shown to be neglible.

Come on scepti!
Why doesnt the feather flutter?

I don't recognise the video as being legit but I will answer your question on the feather.

In a chamber that has has just about all of its internal pressure allowed to be evacuated, it leaves a hell of a lot less molecules inside in terms of compression against each other.
This basically weakens the vibrational effects (friction) upon each other that they cannot travel any distance by being pushed against by any object.

To give a simple analogy (and take it as this) it's like running headfirst into a bale of hay (no evacuation) and then running head first into that same bale of hay spread out into a loose mound, (allowed evacuation).
This may fly right past you but there you go.

Wheres the resistance if the feather doesnt flutter???

Answer this one first and it might answer your question.
If I brush past you in the street with some  force will a passer by notice it?
If I brush past you delicately, will a passer by notice it?

Does a stacked molecule expand to fill the sapce?

There is never any space. Molecules simply compress and expand against each other. No free space.

If so the distance between the atoms of the molecules grows?

The expansion of the molecules create less space.
Molecules expand from within. They are like a jawbreaker set up in terms of layered. They aren't just one empty bubble.
I use soap bubbles as an analogy as to how molecules set up in terms of us seeing them.
Take a close look at soap bubbles and see the difference in size of them.
It goes way more complicated so let's stick to the basics.

If theres nothing physically there, wheres the resistance?

As above. There's always something physically there. Free space means no life, meaning no existence of anything.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 15, 2018, 09:43:20 PM

Wheres the resistance if the feather doesnt flutter???

Answer this one first and it might answer your question.
If I brush past you in the street with some  force will a passer by notice it?
If I brush past you delicately, will a passer by notice it?

Quote from: Themightykabool

Does a stacked molecule expand to fill the sapce?

There is never any space. Molecules simply compress and expand against each other. No free space.

Quote from: Themightykabool

If so the distance between the atoms of the molecules grows?

The expansion of the molecules create less space.
Molecules expand from within. They are like a jawbreaker set up in terms of layered. They aren't just one empty bubble.
I use soap bubbles as an analogy as to how molecules set up in terms of us seeing them.
Take a close look at soap bubbles and see the difference in size of them.
It goes way more complicated so let's stick to the basics.

Quote from: Themightykabool

If theres nothing physically there, wheres the resistance?

As above. There's always something physically there. Free space means no life, meaning no existence of anything.

How can you talk about molecules and how they behave when you have quite possibly never  seen one, unless you have conducted experiments. If that’s the case.......
What molecular experiments have you carried out and what equipment did you use to perform said experiments?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 01:25:34 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 15, 2018, 12:20:11 PM

No, not pretty simple. No where in there is there any explanation for why objects have weight.

Yes there is. The issue is in you not acceroting it, which is your prerogative.

I'm not accepting it because it isn't there.

But you accept gravity. Hmmmm.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 01:25:34 AM

Ask yourself what weight is.
Do you agree it's no more than a man made measurement of mass?

No, it is a measure of force required to lift/support the object.

Correct. The force of any dense mass displacing its own dense mass against the atmospheric pressure.

You say it's mass getting pulled. I say it's mass displacing the atmospheric environment it is in.
Or is your side a little bit more than  that?

No, I'm not discussing gravity at all. I am discussing what is perceived.
If I hold an object from above it, it still pulls down, even though it is displacing (or as you might say "pushing into") the atmosphere below me.
[/quote]There's no such thing as pull, except for the word we are all designed to believe is a pull. It's all push. We've been though this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 01:25:34 AM

I ask you what weight that rock is. What do you answer?

I would get a scale and measure it.
The simplest scale is a spring balance where the spring is elongated by the force acting on it and in turn this elongated spring resists being elongated by pulling back. There is a linear relationship between force and elongation.
This has nothing to do with the air.

It has everything to do with atmospheric pressure and nothing to do with fictional gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 01:25:34 AM

Do we invent a gravity scale to measure it or do we invent a scale that works on pushing up the mess of rock to be placed on top of a moving plate that will record the energy used to lift it against atmospheric pressure it displaces by its own mass that took up that atmosphere and compressed it further by that push into it to use the ground as it's foundation.?

You don't displace atmospheric pressure.

You displace the atmosphere which is all pressure.

You displace the atmosphere, which exerts pressure in all directions.

Yep.

The simplest demonstration I can think of to show that is a bottle getting crushed by the atmosphere if you "suck" the air out, which happens the same regardless of the orientation of the bottle.

No such thing as suck just as there's no such thing as pull.
We just accept them because we are schooled into it. It doesn't represent real (scientific) life, as far as I'm concerned.

The only type of scale which would record energy that I know of is a Watt balance. All others work based upon force.

They're all based upon force and pressure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 01:25:34 AM

It is still displacing it's own dense mass of atmosphere which is acting right back onto it.

It displaces its volume of atmosphere regardless of where it is.

Nope, not at all. The volume is the atmosphere. That's the equalisation force of pressure with the atmosphere.
That's what creates what we know as, buoyant force in a denser environment to the atmosphere....like water.

The only acting upon it the atmosphere would do is push it up due to the pressure gradient in the atmosphere (which is beyond the basic level, unless your model relies upon that pressure gradient).

It's a squeeze. A crush.

Why should it having displaced atmosphere, which again, it does regardless of where it is, cause it to be pushed down?

It's squeezed down by compression of it's own atmospheric displacement upon it's own dense mass.

One of the only ways your explanation can even begin to make sense is if the rock just magically pops into existence from nowhere, in which case it would displace the atmosphere all around it and have no preferred direction to be pushed.

What about a tree? Just as an instance? What's pushing that up when so called gravity should be pulling it down?

Any existing object will be displacing the atmosphere regardless of where it is.

Correct.

It will need to displace atmosphere to move down. So if the atmosphere is resisting that, why would it force it down?

A ship displaces atmosphere by being moved down into the water.
The water as a foundation has to crush back against the crush of the atmosphere.
The water has to be pushed aside by that dense mass (ship) but it cannot happen unless it's pushing into the atmosphere to be crushed back against that water.
Gravity cannot be under that ship supposedly pulling it down when we can see clearly that it's being crushed up against a force above it.....not below it.

The other alternative is to have the rock displace less atmosphere when it is lower than it does when it is higher, but that would require the atmosphere to be less dense the lower it is, so the same volume displaced amounts to less atmosphere. But that is the exact opposite of what is observed, with the density being higher the lower you go.

Not quite sure where you're going with this.

This is why I say you don't have an explanation.
You are jumping from the rock displacing the atmosphere to it somehow making it go down. There is no explanation of why.

There's perfect explanations as to why. You simply refuse to look at it, whether that's deliberate or you can't grasp it, I'm not entirely sure.

Also, nothing in that requires Earth to be flat. The same kind of reasoning would work if Earth was a sphere with us on the outside, or on the inside, or a hyperbolic surface.

No foundation, no pressure, means no cell, means no life.

A walking globe with atmosphere all around it with no foundation for it and no barrier from so called space = a bogus scientific theory. In my opinion of course.

How can you talk about molecules and how they behave when you have quite possibly never  seen one, unless you have conducted experiments. If that’s the case.......
What molecular experiments have you carried out and what equipment did you use to perform said experiments?

Have you seen gravity?
Have you seen an atom?
Have you seen a whole host of stuff you're told about in so called space?
Have you seen the core of your Earth?
I could go on.
You and people like you will argue in favour of everything that's said about everything that is not proven, not seen and merely mainstream postulated...and yet you'll do this by referencing whatever you need to reference based on any argument against those things...because you know there's an answer. It doesn't matter whether you understand the answer. It doesn't matter if you can't work out the equations for X amount of unseen stuff.

What counts to you is having the official answers.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2018, 02:19:32 PM

Have you done an experiment like Cavendish?
If so, tell me what you did.

I haven't tried it because I don't know what I'm looking for in terms of gravity as a force.

Obviously you would be trying to verify or disprove that gravitation causes a detectable force between masses.

Have you tried it and if so tell me what you did, basically.

No, why should I attempt to replicate what has been already been performed hundreds of times?

Quote from: rabinoz

I could ask you, "Have you even attempted an experiment like Cavendish?"
If so, tell me what your results you got and how it disproved Newtonian Gravitation.

Nope, I never have because I don't know what I'm attempting to do in terms of proving a gravity force.

Answered above

Give me the basics of how you did it and the results you manged to get from it that proved gravity to you. Let's try some honestly here.

Why should I repeat what has been done hundreds of times by others?

Quote from: rabinoz

You claim all these hundreds of demonstrations and serious experiments are fakes yet you refuse to even attempt it yourself!

Fakes or simply proving nothing. Take your pick.

What justification do you have for claiming all are fakes simply because you refuse to replicate them?

My point is and always has been that it is impossible for one person to do the necessary investigations, experiments and measurements necessary to determine the shape of the earth and the physical laws governing the behaviour of "things".

End of story.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 15, 2018, 07:51:17 PM

I'll say this to Sceppy's credit.
Others will claim that "atmosphere push" or "density" explain gravity then refuse to seriously the matter further.
Sceppy, on the other hand, does put in a great deal of effort into making up a complete "theory".

I like the sceppanese bit. But yes, you're right, I do put a lot of effort into my theory.
You're smart enough to understand it even though you dismiss it in favour of the schooled version.
That's fair enough...but like you say, it has to be grasped from my side of the coin.

But one person cannot possible do the necessary investigations, experiments and measurements necessary to develop a theory as extensive of yours that fits reality.

I've said enough because you never take the slightest notice of anything anyone says.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 14, 2018, 11:21:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2018, 02:19:32 PM

Have you done an experiment like Cavendish?
If so, tell me what you did.

I haven't tried it because I don't know what I'm looking for in terms of gravity as a force.

Obviously you would be trying to verify or disprove that gravitation causes a detectable force between masses.

Ok, so how do I manage to do that using a pivot and some dense objects?
What am I looking for as a measurement?

Quote from: sceptimatic

Have you tried it and if so tell me what you did, basically.

No, why should I attempt to replicate what has been already been performed hundreds of times?

Quote from: sceptimatic

Give me the basics of how you did it and the results you manged to get from it that proved gravity to you. Let's try some honestly here.

Why should I repeat what has been done hundreds of times by others?

You don't have to.
Are you merely going on viewing an experiment and accepting of gravity or is there a stand out thing that is so clear to you?
If there is then share it with me so I don't have to deny gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Quote from: rabinoz

You claim all these hundreds of demonstrations and serious experiments are fakes yet you refuse to even attempt it yourself!

Fakes or simply proving nothing. Take your pick.

What justification do you have for claiming all are fakes simply because you refuse to replicate them?

I'm not claiming the experiment is fake. I'm claiming it does not show gravity.

My point is and always has been that it is impossible for one person to do the necessary investigations, experiments and measurements necessary to determine the shape of the earth and the physical laws governing the behaviour of "things".

End of story.

It's not impossible for a story (fiction or fact) to be told to another and for the story to become a widespread best seller.
The fictional book can easily outsell the factual one.


However, if the factual book causes people to glean physical reality from it then it becomes a book of proof's.
If it only allows people to postulate then it becomes the book of unproven.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 01:47:53 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 15, 2018, 07:51:17 PM

I'll say this to Sceppy's credit.
Others will claim that "atmosphere push" or "density" explain gravity then refuse to seriously the matter further.
Sceppy, on the other hand, does put in a great deal of effort into making up a complete "theory".

I like the sceppanese bit. But yes, you're right, I do put a lot of effort into my theory.
You're smart enough to understand it even though you dismiss it in favour of the schooled version.
That's fair enough...but like you say, it has to be grasped from my side of the coin.

But one person cannot possible do the necessary investigations, experiments and measurements necessary to develop a theory as extensive of yours that fits reality.

I've said enough because you never take the slightest notice of anything anyone says.

I take in a lot of what most people say. Just because I stand fast does not mean I don't take onboard from a mindset of others.

I happen to think it's you lot that take little notice of what I say, because if you did then you would understand that I do not claim to do all the investigations, experiments and measurements necessary to develop my theory...but I do enough to understand where my theory stands against one that does not stand up to reality (the globe).

Quote from: rabinoz on December 16, 2018, 04:15:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 14, 2018, 11:21:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2018, 02:19:32 PM

Have you done an experiment like Cavendish?
If so, tell me what you did.

I haven't tried it because I don't know what I'm looking for in terms of gravity as a force.

Obviously you would be trying to verify or disprove that gravitation causes a detectable force between masses.

Ok, so how do I manage to do that using a pivot and some dense objects?
What am I looking for as a measurement?

The experiments are described in detail in many of the videos and in many write-ups and papers on the experiments.
I'm not going to waste my time repeating what has been written over and over again. 
Even the very first, by Henry Cavendish, is described in great detail. 

And gravitation is but one necessary experiment to find the Universal Gravitational Constant, G. There are many others.
One person in one lifetime does not have the time to do all the measurements to determine all the physical constants and they cannot be dragged out of one's imagination

And you still ask, "What am I looking for as a measurement?"
I would have thought that obvious! Does bringing the large masses near the swinging masses cause these to move.

And I've run out of time to say more but I see no point in saying more anyway.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 04:29:26 AM

Ok, so how do I manage to do that using a pivot and some dense objects?
What am I looking for as a measurement?

The experiments are described in detail in many of the videos and in many write-ups and papers on the experiments.
I'm not going to waste my time repeating what has been written over and over again. 
Even the very first, by Henry Cavendish, is described in great detail.

So you're not going to waste your time but you're asking me to do the experiment and waste mine and yet you won't tell me what I'm supposed to glean from it in terms of how I measure this gravity because of it?
Seems like a cop out.
 

And gravitation is but one necessary experiment to find the Universal Gravitational Constant, G. There are many others.

Ok then give the most basic that you know proves gravity where I have no choice but to see it as nothing other.
Tell me how you managed to see it.

One person in one lifetime does not have the time to do all the measurements to determine all the physical constants and they cannot be dragged out of one's imagination

I'm not asking for all measurements. I'm asking for something that proves gravity that even a gonk like myself can't dispute.

And you still ask, "What am I looking for as a measurement?"
I would have thought that obvious! Does bringing the large masses near the swinging masses cause these to move.

Ok, large masses near swinging masses cause them to move.
Ok that's fine.
Tell me what gravity is doing, because I was under the impression it supposedly pulls things down.

And I've run out of time to say more but I see no point in saying more anyway.

You see no point because you're sweating under my questioning. You're finding it extremely difficult to actually prove gravity to me without frantically looking at google or books...and even then you can't find a way to prove it, other than to say mass moves towards mass on a pivot over a long period of time and yet you have not done any experiment that proves to you that gravity is clear and in your face.

And yet you think my theory is nonsense.

It beggars belief.
Either put up or shut up.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 15, 2018, 03:35:28 AM

My first question is pretty short and simple, and I basically want to know why wouldn’t you go ahead and try a cavendish like experiment to see what happens.

I don't know what the experiment proves, so why do it?

Quote from: defender_of_truth

My second question is: do you deny that the masses will attract in the cavendish experiment?

No I don't deny it. My reasoning is "why" they attract.
You say it's gravity. Ok fair enough, then you explain to me how you know it's gravity.
All I'm asking is for you to explain to me how you know it's gravity.

Quote from: defender_of_truth

  If you deny that, back to question one; why not try it? If you don’t deny that the masses attract, it’s a totally different conversation.

It is a different conversation because you have to know how my Earth hypothesis works to understand why mass will move towards mass on a pivot.

It's been mildly explained, just look it up.

However, forget about that for a minute. I want you to explain to me how you know you, yourself, prove gravity with your Cavendish experiment. Tell me how you did your experiment to prove it.

I’m happy to learn that you accept masses will tend to move toward each other. To me, it’s that simple. Let’s leave it at that for now, and you can have one less parallel conversation.

I’m happy to learn that you accept masses will tend to move toward each other. To me, it’s that simple. Let’s leave it at that for now, and you can have one less parallel conversation.

Yep, just as long as we are all clear on masses moving towards each other on a pivot does not equate to it being a fictional force (imo) called gravity.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 15, 2018, 07:50:32 AM

So how does scepti define displacement?
He keeps using that word and clearly it dossnt mean whatever one else thinks it means.
Good job buddy.

Quite simple.
Any dense mass that takes up it's own entire mass of whatever matter it is placed into.

Simple enough?

No.
Because the rest of us use volume.
No desnity.
And pretty sure density means somehin different to you too.
Keep misusing language.
Cornerstone of miscommunication.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 15, 2018, 07:57:59 AM

Ok forget air.
You seem to be unable to comprehend something you cant see.
Water.
Liquids can be considered incompressible.
But we can still pressurize.
So.
When a liquid is pumped from one vessel to another, are the mocules expandning and stacking but never leaving the vessel??

Give me an exact scenario of how (in your mind) you're setting up this experiment to move one liquid from one vessel to another and I'll happily answer it from my side.

You drive a car or not smart enough to pass the test?
Ever have to fill a car with gas?

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 16, 2018, 06:37:40 AM

I’m happy to learn that you accept masses will tend to move toward each other. To me, it’s that simple. Let’s leave it at that for now, and you can have one less parallel conversation.

Yep, just as long as we are all clear on masses moving towards each other on a pivot does not equate to it being a fictional force (imo) called gravity.

As mentioned before, the key here is if both denpressure and gravitation can explain the physical reality then it’s not a good test to prove one right and one wrong. I’m not familiar with how denpressure could explain the behavior of masses moving horizontally toward each other, so I’m happy to just talk about the physical results of the experiment and stop short of making any conclusions on it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 12:37:16 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 15, 2018, 07:50:32 AM

So how does scepti define displacement?
He keeps using that word and clearly it dossnt mean whatever one else thinks it means.
Good job buddy.

Quite simple.
Any dense mass that takes up it's own entire mass of whatever matter it is placed into.

Simple enough?

No.
Because the rest of us use volume.
No desnity.
And pretty sure density means somehin different to you too.
Keep misusing language.
Cornerstone of miscommunication.

Volume is molecular space. Atmosphere is molecular space. You cannot have a weight measurement based on any of that.
It's the dense mass of any object that holds that space. The structure, not the volume or porosity.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 15, 2018, 09:43:20 PM

Wheres the resistance if the feather doesnt flutter???

Answer this one first and it might answer your question.
If I brush past you in the street with some  force will a passer by notice it?
If I brush past you delicately, will a passer by notice it?

Quote from: Themightykabool

Does a stacked molecule expand to fill the sapce?

There is never any space. Molecules simply compress and expand against each other. No free space.

Quote from: Themightykabool

If so the distance between the atoms of the molecules grows?

The expansion of the molecules create less space.
Molecules expand from within. They are like a jawbreaker set up in terms of layered. They aren't just one empty bubble.
I use soap bubbles as an analogy as to how molecules set up in terms of us seeing them.
Take a close look at soap bubbles and see the difference in size of them.
It goes way more complicated so let's stick to the basics.

Quote from: Themightykabool

If theres nothing physically there, wheres the resistance?

As above. There's always something physically there. Free space means no life, meaning no existence of anything.

Guy.
Space doesnt exist.
Then suddenly theres less space.
You seem confused.
But thars a side note.

Last statement you say no life.
You would be correct that if you placed you head in a vacuuum chamber - you would die.
Try it (dont try it alone).

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2018, 12:39:43 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 15, 2018, 07:57:59 AM

Ok forget air.
You seem to be unable to comprehend something you cant see.
Water.
Liquids can be considered incompressible.
But we can still pressurize.
So.
When a liquid is pumped from one vessel to another, are the mocules expandning and stacking but never leaving the vessel??

Give me an exact scenario of how (in your mind) you're setting up this experiment to move one liquid from one vessel to another and I'll happily answer it from my side.

You drive a car or not smart enough to pass the test?
Ever have to fill a car with gas?

You need to explain yourself fully. I'm not entirely sure what you're fully getting at.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 15, 2018, 09:11:13 PM

The video clearly shows the feather first fluttering down due to wind resistance.
Then in the 2nd when air is "unpressurized/ evacuated/ unstacked" the feather doesnt flutter at all.
His claim of resistance is clearly shown to be neglible.

Come on scepti!
Why doesnt the feather flutter?

I don't recognise the video as being legit but I will answer your question on the feather.

In a chamber that has has just about all of its internal pressure allowed to be evacuated, it leaves a hell of a lot less molecules inside in terms of compression against each other.
This basically weakens the vibrational effects (friction) upon each other that they cannot travel any distance by being pushed against by any object.

To give a simple analogy (and take it as this) it's like running headfirst into a bale of hay (no evacuation) and then running head first into that same bale of hay spread out into a loose mound, (allowed evacuation).
This may fly right past you but there you go.

Ahahah
Not legit.
You know that was just an example on a large scale because you asked for one of substantial height.
Youtube has lots of videos.
Everyones conspiring against you?
Get many stares when you walk down the street in your tinfoil hat.