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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 485821 Views
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2580 on: December 16, 2018, 07:10:22 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.

Im saying youre not smart.

Or about the gas?
Trolling?
Reservoir tank is pumped into your gas tank.
Liquid is moved from one vessel to anothrr.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2581 on: December 16, 2018, 07:16:25 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.
Ok fair enough.

Denpressure explains it due to how Earth works under denpressure theory.

We live in a pressurised whirlpool at the centre which spans out as far as life itself can live as the outer dome foundation slopes up,
Basically agitated from the centre where our carbon arc sun is inside the centre of that slope. We call that the north pole and the outer slope (dome foundation) would be a supposed south pole, yet in theory the south would be down the north pole slope where the central Earth sun is that is feeding from the atmospheric whirlpool.

This naturally creates pressured movement by agitation/vibration of matter which would be felt in varying ways from large to extremely small...including the minutely moveable pivoted masses.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2582 on: December 16, 2018, 07:16:58 AM »
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.
[/quote]

Two points.
Jackb, you cant argue RE facts wih this guy.
He doesnt beleive.
Assume denp and then pick it appart from there.

Scepti.
In your opinion of course because youre not very smart.
Is there a physical boundary between the water and the sky?
No.
So in RE universe, why does there need to be a phsyical boundary between the sky and space?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2583 on: December 16, 2018, 07:22:38 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.
 

Quote from: rabinoz
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.

Quote from: rabinoz
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.

Quote from: rabinoz
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.

Quote from: rabinoz
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.

Rab and jackb.
Forget the why.
He doesnt get the cavendish.
He doesnt understand it.
And the explanation is one he already rejects as imaginary.

The feather flutter!
Say it 3x fast.
He "what" he flat out denies!
This is insane.
No nasa.
Everyday humans using compressors and pumps and pressure vessels.
He doesnt believe they sxist!!!
His is beyond nasa and ice wall conspiracy.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2584 on: December 16, 2018, 07:25:34 AM »
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.
Show me something which cannot be denied.
You seem to accept stuff just because it's easier to do that than to question it.
You spend far too much time trying to make  yourself look smart for other and yet it ends up like tantrums.
Put some effort in like you started to do earlier.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2585 on: December 16, 2018, 07:28:14 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.

Im saying youre not smart.

Or about the gas?
Trolling?
Reservoir tank is pumped into your gas tank.
Liquid is moved from one vessel to anothrr.
I give you 2 - gallon containers of identical size and shape.
Tell me what you would do with them and then pose a question to me.
Leave nothing out. Explain it all so I can give you an answer.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2586 on: December 16, 2018, 07:30:48 AM »


No air.
No air resistance.
Not sure what you were on about with the walking and passerby comment.

Just had a thought that not sure if anyones brought up yet.
If air isnt going in an out but is being unforced and unstacked - how do you breath and are alive?
Scepti must be an AI bot troll.
Most alive people i know take in fresh air and expell used air.
They have a diaprhagm muscle that pumps it in and out.
Stabs and bullets punctures can cause a breach in the pressure vessel caled the lung.
We know if you dont get new air you die.
Scepti must be a computer that doesnt breath because he doesnt understand this.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2587 on: December 16, 2018, 07:57:35 AM »
Scepti.
In your opinion
Is there a physical boundary between the water and the sky?
No, just molecules/matter.

Quote from: Themightykabool

So in RE universe, why does there need to be a phsyical boundary between the sky and space?
It depends what you're classing as, space.

If your space is a true vacuum or not attached particles/molecules, then it simply cannot exist to be anything other than fiction.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2588 on: December 16, 2018, 09:51:45 AM »
Scepti.
In your opinion
Is there a physical boundary between the water and the sky?
No, just molecules/matter.

Quote from: Themightykabool

So in RE universe, why does there need to be a phsyical boundary between the sky and space?
It depends what you're classing as, space.

If your space is a true vacuum or not attached particles/molecules, then it simply cannot exist to be anything other than fiction.

Cant exist with disclaimer "inyour opinion".
Sorry but "Zero" was understood a long time ago.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2589 on: December 16, 2018, 09:56:44 AM »
Dont worry scepti.
I will keep my argue/ debate within your world.
The only issue is use of language...but that will sort itself out.

So lets have it.
Does scepti breathe?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2590 on: December 16, 2018, 10:07:21 AM »
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.
2:55-3:10

If your space is a true vacuum or not attached particles/molecules, then it simply cannot exist to be anything other than fiction.
Why not?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2591 on: December 16, 2018, 10:09:52 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.
Ok fair enough.

Denpressure explains it due to how Earth works under denpressure theory.

We live in a pressurised whirlpool at the centre which spans out as far as life itself can live as the outer dome foundation slopes up,
Basically agitated from the centre where our carbon arc sun is inside the centre of that slope. We call that the north pole and the outer slope (dome foundation) would be a supposed south pole, yet in theory the south would be down the north pole slope where the central Earth sun is that is feeding from the atmospheric whirlpool.

This naturally creates pressured movement by agitation/vibration of matter which would be felt in varying ways from large to extremely small...including the minutely moveable pivoted masses.

I don’t think the world you just described can explain predictable movement of masses toward each other. And if masses do move together in a predictable way, that’s a simple definition of gravity. So either, denpressure includes gravity or you’re caught in a lie you’ve told to yourself to maintain your position against the observable evidence

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2592 on: December 16, 2018, 12:04:43 PM »
Dont worry scepti.
I will keep my argue/ debate within your world.
The only issue is use of language...but that will sort itself out.

So lets have it.
Does scepti breathe?
Yes I breathe.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2593 on: December 16, 2018, 12:11:30 PM »

2:55-3:10
We live in a pressurised whirlpool at the centre which spans out as far as life itself can live as the outer dome foundation slopes up,
Basically agitated from the centre where our carbon arc sun is inside the centre of that slope. We call that the north pole and the outer slope (dome foundation) would be a supposed south pole, yet in theory the south would be down the north pole slope where the central Earth sun is that is feeding from the atmospheric whirlpool.

This naturally creates pressured movement by agitation/vibration of matter which would be felt in varying ways from large to extremely small...including the minutely moveable pivoted masses.


Quote from: 29silhouette
If your space is a true vacuum or not attached particles/molecules, then it simply cannot exist to be anything other than fiction.
Why not?
No vibrational frequencies.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2594 on: December 16, 2018, 12:13:23 PM »
Dont worry scepti.
I will keep my argue/ debate within your world.
The only issue is use of language...but that will sort itself out.

So lets have it.
Does scepti breathe?
Yes I breathe.

good.
So when you breath is it in and out or just expand and compress?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2595 on: December 16, 2018, 12:17:02 PM »


No air.
No air resistance.
Not sure what you were on about with the walking and passerby comment.

Just had a thought that not sure if anyones brought up yet.
If air isnt going in an out but is being unforced and unstacked - how do you breath and are alive?
Scepti must be an AI bot troll.
Most alive people i know take in fresh air and expell used air.
They have a diaprhagm muscle that pumps it in and out.
Stabs and bullets punctures can cause a breach in the pressure vessel caled the lung.
We know if you dont get new air you die.
Scepti must be a computer that doesnt breath because he doesnt understand this.
You're just a pump, what's the issue?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2596 on: December 16, 2018, 12:19:33 PM »

I don’t think the world you just described can explain predictable movement of masses toward each other. And if masses do move together in a predictable way, that’s a simple definition of gravity. So either, denpressure includes gravity or you’re caught in a lie you’ve told to yourself to maintain your position against the observable evidence
Ok then, explain the predictable movement of masses that proves gravity.
What is it that's predictable and repeatable that proves your gravity?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2597 on: December 16, 2018, 12:26:46 PM »
Dont worry scepti.
I will keep my argue/ debate within your world.
The only issue is use of language...but that will sort itself out.

So lets have it.
Does scepti breathe?
Yes I breathe.

good.
So when you breath is it in and out or just expand and compress?
Expand and compress.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2598 on: December 16, 2018, 12:27:28 PM »


No air.
No air resistance.
Not sure what you were on about with the walking and passerby comment.

Just had a thought that not sure if anyones brought up yet.
If air isnt going in an out but is being unforced and unstacked - how do you breath and are alive?
Scepti must be an AI bot troll.
Most alive people i know take in fresh air and expell used air.
They have a diaprhagm muscle that pumps it in and out.
Stabs and bullets punctures can cause a breach in the pressure vessel caled the lung.
We know if you dont get new air you die.
Scepti must be a computer that doesnt breath because he doesnt understand this.
You're just a pump, what's the issue?

The issue is the disconnect between how you describe stacking and unstacking of air to how your lungs keep you alive.
Is air moving in and out of you or is it unstacking restacking?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2599 on: December 16, 2018, 12:28:06 PM »
But you accept gravity. Hmmmm.
Yes, like I accept the other fundamental forces of nature. They are backed up by loads of evidence. You are not appealing to a fundamental force of nature. You appealing to an interaction between a solid object and the atmosphere and relying upon pressure.

Correct. The force of any dense mass displacing its own dense mass against the atmospheric pressure.
I see no connection to displacing the atmosphere other than due to buoyancy (which some people don't include under weight).

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.
Yes, we have been through this and you weren't able to justify it at all.
When the object is below me, there is no way for me to push it up. But I can pull it up.

It has everything to do with atmospheric pressure and nothing to do with fictional gravity.
Then explain how. You are yet to do so. And stop bringing gravity into it.

Quote from: JackBlack
You displace the atmosphere, which exerts pressure in all directions.
Yep.
Good, glad we got that clarified. That means it shouldn't be pushing an object down. It pushes it inwards.

No such thing as suck just as there's no such thing as pull.
Which is why I put it in quotes. But notice how you are just appealing to semantics?

They're all based upon force and pressure.
No, not all are based upon pressure.
And if that is the case, why bring up energy?

Nope, not at all. The volume is the atmosphere. That's the equalisation force of pressure with the atmosphere.
No. Regardless of where the object is, it is displacing the atmosphere as the atmosphere isn't occupying the volume the object is taking up, with the sole exception of when you put it into another fluid which is isolated from the atmosphere.
In that case it would be displacing that fluid.

Moving it up just means it is displacing a different region of the atmosphere. The same volume is still displaced.

That's what creates what we know as, buoyant force in a denser environment to the atmosphere....like water.
We have been over this before, it isn't. Not in the slightest. The buoyant force relies upon gravity generating a pressure gradient in the fluid which results in an upwards force on the object as the pressure is greater the lower you are. It also applies to all fluids, not just water, but also the atmosphere.
But we haven't even finished with the basics of why an object falls, so lets not get to more complicated things yet.

It's squeezed down by compression of it's own atmospheric displacement upon it's own dense mass.
Compression is squeezing inwards, like the bottle above getting crushed. It isn't downwards.
Again, why is it pushed down?

What about a tree?
Trees don't just pop into existence from nowhere.

What's pushing that up when so called gravity should be pulling it down?
Again, we aren't discussing gravity.
It is being supported by its trunk and root system.

A ship displaces atmosphere by being moved down into the water.
Nope. The ship displaces the atmosphere by being in the atmosphere. It displaces water by going into the water, which results in the water displacing the atmosphere.
Once it is in that water, it remains displacing the water regardless of where it is. But until we have a reason for the water to go down, there is no reason for the boat to be pushed up by the water.

So again, let's stick to the basics, why does the ship go down in the first place? Why doesn't it just fly through the air?

Gravity
Again, we are not discussing gravity. Stop trying to attack it to prop up your model.
You need to explain why things fall.

Not quite sure where you're going with this.
The only remotely plausible model where the atmosphere creates the downwards pull, where it does so based upon a magically sustained inverted pressure/density gradient, causing the buoyant force to act downwards. It still doesn't match reality, but at least it has a downwards pull.

There's perfect explanations as to why.
If there is, you are yet to give it.
So far you have this:
1 - Object displaces atmosphere.
10 - Object is pushed down.

You are missing all the steps in between.
You have provided no justification for why it displacing the atmosphere should result in a downwards force.

And this is before we even get to the more complex stuff of displacing the atmosphere actually causing an upwards force.

No foundation
Any surface could that provide that foundation.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2600 on: December 16, 2018, 12:29:44 PM »
Aah ok
Expand and compress.
So with the expand and compress model, that would happen regardless of the quality of air because air would not ohysically be moving in and out of you, he molecules are just expanding and compressing - but overall remaining.
So that said.
I could put a plasitc bag over tour head and you could hppily xontinue expanding and compressing your lungs for a long time.
Please dont try this without an assistant.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2601 on: December 16, 2018, 12:44:17 PM »


No air.
No air resistance.
Not sure what you were on about with the walking and passerby comment.

Just had a thought that not sure if anyones brought up yet.
If air isnt going in an out but is being unforced and unstacked - how do you breath and are alive?
Scepti must be an AI bot troll.
Most alive people i know take in fresh air and expell used air.
They have a diaprhagm muscle that pumps it in and out.
Stabs and bullets punctures can cause a breach in the pressure vessel caled the lung.
We know if you dont get new air you die.
Scepti must be a computer that doesnt breath because he doesnt understand this.
You're just a pump, what's the issue?

The issue is the disconnect between how you describe stacking and unstacking of air to how your lungs keep you alive.
Is air moving in and out of you or is it unstacking restacking?
Just think of a pump inflating a balloon and allowing that balloon to deflate.
That's you in the most basic of basic.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2602 on: December 16, 2018, 12:46:34 PM »
Ugh.
I know why in my world a balloon gets pumped up.

Explain how your world works because previous you stated molecukes stack up and compress - that they dont actually flow out.
In the breathing example - we dont actually exhange air.
Or is this incorect?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2603 on: December 17, 2018, 11:29:20 PM »
But you accept gravity. Hmmmm.
Yes, like I accept the other fundamental forces of nature. They are backed up by loads of evidence. You are not appealing to a fundamental force of nature. You appealing to an interaction between a solid object and the atmosphere and relying upon pressure.
You appeal to an unknown force due to being schooled into that. Deny it if you wish.
I'm simply showing that atmospheric pressure is the reason for measured scale weight, for reasons I've already given, countless times.

Quote from: JackBlack
Correct. The force of any dense mass displacing its own dense mass against the atmospheric pressure.
I see no connection to displacing the atmosphere other than due to buoyancy (which some people don't include under weight).
It's a mixture, depending on the porosity of an object and whether it can be overcome by atmospheric squeeze to be squeezed up.
The issue is in how much of that atmosphere any object takes up by it's mass that determines whether it displaces more of it than the atmosphere below it, can resist.
The only way it can resist is if the mass of molecules can squeeze  and hold the object or squeeze that object UP.
Water does a sterling job of it

Quote from: JackBlack
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.
Yes, we have been through this and you weren't able to justify it at all.
When the object is below me, there is no way for me to push it up. But I can pull it up.
You have to think of how you're supposedly pulling it up to understand that you're not.

Let me give you an example.
You want to supposedly pull up a wooden block from the ground with your hands.
Let's see how many ways this can be achieved.
You can push your fingers under it so that your fingerprints push into the underside of that block.
You now have yo raise it but first you need something to push against to achieve it.
You're stood on ground so you use your feet as your foundation against the ground as your feets foundation.

Now you need to push that block up with your fingers.

If you could be stood under those fingers you would see that they are pushing the block up.
Even if you tied rope around the block and gripped that rope, you are using the inside of that rope that is under and around the block to squeeze it and push, aided by your squeezing grip, which is a push and your feet pushing into the ground to aid in pushing that block up.

Nowhere is there any pulling.
Of course it can be argued because we are naturally schooled into push and pull. But to understand the stuff that's going on around us (imo) against what we're schooled into, it becomes a whole new logical in your face reality than the fictional one we are designed to simply follow without much question.

Quote from: JackBlack
It has everything to do with atmospheric pressure and nothing to do with fictional gravity.
Then explain how. You are yet to do so. And stop bringing gravity into it.
I've more than explained. You refuse to acknowledge it and fair enough. That's your issue, not mine.

Quote from: JackBlack
Quote from: JackBlack
You displace the atmosphere, which exerts pressure in all directions.
Yep.
Good, glad we got that clarified. That means it shouldn't be pushing an object down. It pushes it inwards.
It squeezes, just like water squeezes a ship, but the ship still displaces water and atmosphere by the ship's own dense mass (structure) displacing atmosphere at first and secondly using the water as its foundation, which becomes an unstable foundation in terms of not being a solid resistance.
The dense mass of that ship is pushing it's own mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is pushing right back onto it of which the water is now resisting.
The fact that the ship has lots of volume means the atmosphere equalises with that volume which ensures the ship is not pushed down further to overcome the dense water resisting it.


Quote from: JackBlack
No such thing as suck just as there's no such thing as pull.
Which is why I put it in quotes. But notice how you are just appealing to semantics?
Call it what you will but I'm telling it from my side, because from my side this is how it is.



Quote from: JackBlack
They're all based upon force and pressure.
No, not all are based upon pressure.
And if that is the case, why bring up energy?
Nothing moves without energy applied. Energy is just another push or expansion of matter onto matter. It's all pressures and vibrational frequencies.



Quote from: JackBlack
Nope, not at all. The volume is the atmosphere. That's the equalisation force of pressure with the atmosphere.
No. Regardless of where the object is, it is displacing the atmosphere as the atmosphere isn't occupying the volume the object is taking up, with the sole exception of when you put it into another fluid which is isolated from the atmosphere.
In that case it would be displacing that fluid.
If the volume of a box is in the atmosphere then that volume is classed as the box being porous if it is a sealed box. Trapped atmosphere just like the structures can also be porous, like a sponge if you were to look real close.
Some are easily seen and others can't be seen due to us not being of very good sight which is where magnification comes in.
The least amount of porosity an object has means the biggest amount of displacement of atmosphere for its observable mass.



Quote from: JackBlack
Moving it up just means it is displacing a different region of the atmosphere. The same volume is still displaced.
Volume displaces nothing.


Quote from: JackBlack
That's what creates what we know as, buoyant force in a denser environment to the atmosphere....like water.
We have been over this before, it isn't. Not in the slightest. The buoyant force relies upon gravity generating a pressure gradient in the fluid which results in an upwards force on the object as the pressure is greater the lower you are. It also applies to all fluids, not just water, but also the atmosphere.
But we haven't even finished with the basics of why an object falls, so lets not get to more complicated things yet.
It's pretty clear to anyone that atmospheric pressure being displaced by dense mass of objects is what gives us a man made weight measurement.
Gravity is a so called theory. Nobody knows what it is but are willing to accept it does what they're told because it keeps the spinning globe and space, etc, alive.
But we won't go too far into that.

Quote from: JackBlack
It's squeezed down by compression of it's own atmospheric displacement upon it's own dense mass.
Compression is squeezing inwards, like the bottle above getting crushed. It isn't downwards.
Again, why is it pushed down?
For anything to squeeze it has to be pushed to be pushed back on with equal force.
If you are in a crowd getting crushed, you resist that crush by expanding your body by using your energy to push against all crushing sides.
If you were to suddenly eat a blueberry that was not quite fully tested, like Violet Beauregard then you would create a bigger compression against the crowd and in turn that crowd would crush back at you with that same force which would basically have you sat atop of that crowd due to them being more dense for that same area.
That would be buoyancy that happens because of crushing UP because the object is now less dense and expanded and unable to overcome the more dense objects below it.
Change that to molecules and we have the same thing.

Quote from: JackBlack
What about a tree?
Trees don't just pop into existence from nowhere.
They push into existence from below and displace atmosphere as they do so, whilst using the ground as their leverage and foundation.
Their trunks and branches push up. Their roots push down and try to hold a steady foundation which is weak at first because they sink, just like a ship in water, except this is more dense Earth.

Quote from: JackBlack
What's pushing that up when so called gravity should be pulling it down?
Again, we aren't discussing gravity.
It is being supported by its trunk and root system.
As Above.

Quote from: JackBlack
A ship displaces atmosphere by being moved down into the water.
Nope. The ship displaces the atmosphere by being in the atmosphere. It displaces water by going into the water, which results in the water displacing the atmosphere.
Once it is in that water, it remains displacing the water regardless of where it is. But until we have a reason for the water to go down, there is no reason for the boat to be pushed up by the water.

So again, let's stick to the basics, why does the ship go down in the first place? Why doesn't it just fly through the air?
Refer to my explanation further up in this post.

Quote from: JackBlack
Gravity
Again, we are not discussing gravity. Stop trying to attack it to prop up your model.
You need to explain why things fall.
I have explained.

Quote from: JackBlack
Not quite sure where you're going with this.
The only remotely plausible model where the atmosphere creates the downwards pull, where it does so based upon a magically sustained inverted pressure/density gradient, causing the buoyant force to act downwards. It still doesn't match reality, but at least it has a downwards pull.
I've explained. take the time to grasp it properly.


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2604 on: December 18, 2018, 12:19:23 AM »
You appeal to an unknown force
I'm not appealing to anything. I am trying to discuss your model.
Stop trying to discuss gravity. Unless your model uses gravity, it has no place in this discussion.

I'm simply showing that atmospheric pressure is the reason for measured scale weight, for reasons I've already given, countless times.
Except your "reasons" don't make any sense, i.e. aren't reasons.
You have provided no logical connection between displacing some atmosphere and being pushed down.

The issue is in how much of that atmosphere any object takes up by it's mass that determines whether it displaces more of it than the atmosphere below it, can resist.
The only way it can resist is if the mass of molecules can squeeze  and hold the object or squeeze that object UP.
What do you mean by "displaces more of it than the atmosphere below it can resist"?
What is there to resist? So far you have the atmosphere displaced. That is all. Unless you are suggesting the atmosphere resists by crushing the object. But that has no connection to things falling.
Why does it need to squeeze that object up?
Why the directionality?


You have to think of how you're supposedly pulling it up to understand that you're not.
No, thinking about how I am pulling it up makes it quite clear that I am.
You only need to think about how objects are pushed to realise you can't push all objects up.

Let's say I am carrying an object in a bag.
I am only holding the bag by the handle.
If all there is is pushing, then I will push the handle up, and that is all. The handle is unable to pull the rest of the bag and thus the items up.
But why stop there? The handle is being held by my hand, which is below my arm. The only way for my hand to raise by my arm is for my arm to pull it.
My arm is not below my hand and thus can't push it up. It can only pull.

I've more than explained. You refuse to acknowledge it and fair enough. That's your issue, not mine.
No, you are yet to explain. Your "explanation" has a massive logical leap meaning it isn't an explanation at all.
That is your problem, not mine.

You need to explain why displacing the atmosphere should mean the object gets pushed down. So far all you have done is just baselessly asserted that it does.

It squeezes, just like water squeezes a ship
So do you mean like objects below water can be crushed by the pressure, or do you mean like the buoyant force which pushes up?
That is because the lower sections of water are at a greater pressure and thus squeeze more than the higher sections. This results in an upwards force, not a downwards one.
Nether explains why an object will fall.


Call it what you will but I'm telling it from my side
Again, you are ignoring the argument to instead focus on semantics.
Pressure crushes objects (or tries to). It doesn't push them down.

Volume displaces nothing.
I didn't say it does.
I said the object is still displacing the same volume of air.
Now how about you actually the issues raised rather than repeatedly going for distractions.

It's pretty clear to anyone that atmospheric pressure being displaced by dense mass of objects is what gives us a man made weight measurement.
No. The only person who I know of who claims anything like that is you.
It is pretty clear to the vast majority of people that it is gravity, and that displacing a fluid will result in an upwards force, the buoyant force.
But again, this is meant to be discussing your model.

That would be buoyancy that happens because of crushing UP because the object is now less dense and expanded and unable to overcome the more dense objects below it.
What magical crushing up?
The air presses all around, not just up from below. It also pushes down from above and from the sides.

They push into existence
No they don't.
They merely transport existing matter.
As you claim the atmosphere magically gets displaced based upon weight, that means they don't displace any more atmosphere.

Refer to my explanation further up in this post.
You are yet to provide any explanation.

Now, can you explain why do things fall?

So far you have the start - Objects displace the atmosphere.
But then jump straight to the end - The atmosphere pushes the object down.
You have nothing in between to explain why the atmosphere pushes the object down from displacing the atmosphere.

Until you have those missing steps you do not have an explanation.

Ignoring this fact and just repeating the same claims with the same missing steps again and again won't magically make you have an explanation. You will still have nothing more than a baseless assertion worth nothing more than just claiming things fall.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 01:35:03 AM by JackBlack »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2605 on: December 18, 2018, 12:34:33 AM »
We live in a pressurised whirlpool at the centre which spans out as far as life itself can live as the outer dome foundation slopes up,
Basically agitated from the centre where our carbon arc sun is inside the centre of that slope. We call that the north pole and the outer slope (dome foundation) would be a supposed south pole, yet in theory the south would be down the north pole slope where the central Earth sun is that is feeding from the atmospheric whirlpool.

This naturally creates pressured movement by agitation/vibration of matter which would be felt in varying ways from large to extremely small...including the minutely moveable pivoted masses.

Kind of more of an esoteric question. With a flat earth and a dome, a carbon arc sun, whirlpools, crystals and such, it all seems so fanciful. So is den pressure a necessary byproduct of all of those elements to simulate what most commonly attribute to gravity? And why is den pressure needed at all? As many FE proponents outside of the den pressure or UA theory just believe things fall because they just do. No need to conjure any real reason for it.
So why is den pressure even necessary? Why does it need to replace 'gravity'?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2606 on: December 18, 2018, 02:06:30 AM »
So why is den pressure even necessary? Why does it need to replace 'gravity'?
With most flat-earthers, including Sceppy, the one immutable TRUTH is that that the earth is flat and everything else is subservient to that.
But, apart from the "infinite flat-earther hypothesis", Newtonian Gravitation is anathema to a flat-earth - it would collapse the flat-earth into a near spherical body.

Hence FEers must hypothesise something to replace Gravitation by something, be it UA, Denpressure, simple "Density", "Sky Push" etc.

So that is why denpressure or some equivalent necessary.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2607 on: December 18, 2018, 02:51:14 AM »
So why is den pressure even necessary? Why does it need to replace 'gravity'?
With most flat-earthers, including Sceppy, the one immutable TRUTH is that that the earth is flat and everything else is subservient to that.
But, apart from the "infinite flat-earther hypothesis", Newtonian Gravitation is anathema to a flat-earth - it would collapse the flat-earth into a near spherical body.

Hence FEers must hypothesise something to replace Gravitation by something, be it UA, Denpressure, simple "Density", "Sky Push" etc.

So that is why denpressure or some equivalent necessary.

Agreed. But why conjure up an entire system reliant way above and beyond a flat earth. There's a dome, a carbon arc sun, whirlpools, crystals, all required to replicate gravity. If so many magical unobserved by humankind elements exist, why not just say, "And yeah, things just fall down." Why all the rigmorale to replace what we think of as gravity when you could get away with, in context, "there's this carbon arc sun at the center of the north pole, which is the center of our flat earth and if you buy that, you can buy the fact that you don't float away just cuz." In essence, den pressure seems unnecessary at best. Why bother to replace gravity when you have a whole host of other stuff you can just state to exist without evidence or supporting experimentation. It's all just a notion at the end of the day and anyone can have one of those whether observable or not.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2608 on: December 18, 2018, 04:15:18 AM »
So why is den pressure even necessary? Why does it need to replace 'gravity'?
With most flat-earthers, including Sceppy, the one immutable TRUTH is that that the earth is flat and everything else is subservient to that.
But, apart from the "infinite flat-earther hypothesis", Newtonian Gravitation is anathema to a flat-earth - it would collapse the flat-earth into a near spherical body.

Hence FEers must hypothesise something to replace Gravitation by something, be it UA, Denpressure, simple "Density", "Sky Push" etc.

So that is why denpressure or some equivalent necessary.
Agreed. But why conjure up an entire system reliant way above and beyond a flat earth. There's a dome, a carbon arc sun, whirlpools, crystals, all required to replicate gravity. If so many magical unobserved by humankind elements exist, why not just say, "And yeah, things just fall down." Why all the rigmorale to replace what we think of as gravity when you could get away with, in context, "there's this carbon arc sun at the center of the north pole, which is the center of our flat earth and if you buy that, you can buy the fact that you don't float away just cuz." In essence, den pressure seems unnecessary at best. Why bother to replace gravity when you have a whole host of other stuff you can just state to exist without evidence or supporting experimentation. It's all just a notion at the end of the day and anyone can have one of those whether observable or not.
Because Sceppy is really a highly intelligent guy with presumably a very high IQ and so wants a "complete system" of his own making.
The trouble is Sceppy, along with Wise, JRowe, Heiwa and many flat-earthers, also has a very high EQ or Ego Quotient.
The Ultra EQers have such an overinflated opinion of their own intelligence that they are genuinely convinced that if they cannot understand something it simply cannot be true and must be a fake.
You might have noticed with Sceppy that any time someone questions his theories hypotheses he always put it down to their not putting enough effort into understanding it.
This is so obvious in what Sceppy, Wise and Heiwa (read all about it in heiwaco.com/xxxxx.htm ::)) write but is also the basis of much "conspiritard" thinking.
I'll leave you with, SCIENCE FOCUS Why you can’t argue with a conspiracy theorist by Moya Sarner 05th September, 2018.
As Michael Flanders (of Flanders and Swann) said, "You can try it if you like but you'd far better notta"

Flanders & Swann - 'First And Second Law'


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2609 on: December 18, 2018, 05:27:44 AM »
Thanks scepti for that eversonot insightful descripion of lifting a block.
You make things so simple.

Well ive been waiting to see you respond.
There was a big pause so glad to seee you didnt try the bag-over-head experiment by yourself.

You put a lot of effort to respond to jackb's every sentence.
Curious if you breathe air or not.
Do i or anyone else breathe air?