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

A lot of what I'm saying can be seen working under controlled conditions/experiments.
They're simple but show the reality,a s far as I'm concerned.

Can you cite any specific experiments that exhibit the particulars of den pressure? If so, are they documented anywhere?

it means exactly what it means.
empty tank.
fill it with water.
where's the confusion?

No confusion now. All you have to say was, fill an empty tank full of water. Simple.

Ok so let's get back to your original question now that I know what you fully mean.
I'll decipher it just so we are clear and we'll go from there if you agree this is what you mean.

Fill a pressurized water tank full of water.
Introduce a lead block of volume/ into that tank.
Inside is a scale.
Outside is a scale where the whole thing sits.

Weigh both situations.
Howuch the block weighs under pressure inside the tank.
How much the whole assembly weighs outside the tank.
Phuket world even gives you the answer.
Regardless of his result inference.

Ok, so first of all the lead block will measure whatever it's displaced mass of water is, inside the tank, barring any trapped atmosphere inside of the lead that creates a buoyancy.

With that same tank now placed onto an external scale plate for measurement we would have the tank itself displacing the atmosphere along with the lead and the internal scale, plus the water.
All of those objects have displaced the water in the tank so now we have the atmosphere basically displaced by the same mass, accounting for trapped atmosphere inside of the structures of the objects.

Probably not what you're looking for because you're looking for the text book answers.
A clue: Mine is not text book stuff.

Trapped atmosphere in lead causing buoyancy. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ROTFLMFAO

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2018, 04:06:13 AM

They are not the same at all.

In reality, yes. In your model, no, they are effectively the same.

No they are not the same....at all.

Man made instruments to measure weight or measure mass doesn't magically make weight and mass man made.

We can call a mass an entire structure of an object. To measure that mass we can't just say it has weight unless we know what weight is.
For that we invent a way to measure that mass.

You cannot measure that mass on a scale if the mass is sat on a foundation. That mass is displacing atmosphere. It's displacing it's own entire mass against that atmosphere, just like a ship would displace it's own entire mass of water and you cannot measure the weight of a ship by placing a scale plate under it in the water...so what do you do?
You measure the water displacement.
You measure this because the atmosphere is being also displaced by the ship's structure/mass, which is now added to that atmosphere and is now crushed back onto the ship and the water the ship is in is the foundation for the ship to resist that compression of it's own dense mass.
However, because the foundation is not solid, the ship is compressed down and the resulting resistance to that is for the mass of water to be pushed aside and immediately crush back onto that ship, creating buoyancy.

If weight was just from man made instruments, if you let go of something it would just sit there in mid air.
The fact it falls shows it has weight. The fact that you need to put in effort to lift it, which is fundamentally different to just trying to push it, and that you need to continue to put in effort to hold it up, shows it has weight.

If it takes effort to pick up an object them that same effort will be required to hold the object, meaning you are holding an object that displacing the atmosphere it takes up at any point.
That atmosphere is acting back onto the object and is trying to compress it back to the foundation but you've become that foundation for as long as you hold it.
No floating as you say.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2018, 04:06:13 AM

It doesn't have to. It's displacing it's own mass and that displacement is acting back onto the object.

Firstly, that literally makes no sense.
You can have the displaced air acting back on the object, but not displacement.
But the air acting back on the object would simply push in in all directions (ignoring buoyancy).
It wouldn't push it down.

The atmosphere is stacked. There is more atmosphere above you and around you than below you.
Any energy pushing into that atmosphere will compress it, whether it's expanded matter or dense objects.
Once this happens the atmosphere will compress back by the same amount.
Now, of the matter compressing into it is by expansion of molecules, the atmosphere which is more dense, will crush it just like the water will crush back against the ship and you get your buoyancy you're looking for.
However, if the dense mass is crushing into the atmosphere which is more dense that the area of molecules it compresses away then the atmosphere will be compressed by that area, barring any porosity.
This will mean, by mass, the object cannot be crushed up and so, is crushed back to its foundation after energy has stopped pushing into that atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2018, 04:06:13 AM

No. It simply displaces matter.

In your model, the tree displaces air regardless of where it is, and displaces the same regardless of how grown it is. The only questionable part is where part of the air is incorporated into the tree.

You said things don't just appear from nowhere, so I gave you a tree growing from underground then out of the ground.
I told you it has to push it's way out of the denser ground by using ground under it as its foundation to do so.
Once it gets above ground, every part of it's structure barring porosity will displace atmosphere and that atmosphere will crush back  onto it but the ground will again be iot's leverage/foundation to resist that squeeze. It's a push on push as I've said many times.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2018, 04:06:13 AM

I tried to help you by using water but you somehow can't marry it up for some strange reason.

It's because you are just spouting the same nonsense again and again.

Like I said, you jump straight from air is being displaced, to a magic downwards force.

There's no magic about it. You have a stacked atmosphere under a done.
You place any object into that atmosphere and that object requires energy to overcome it. Once overcome the atmosphere is taken up by the mass of the object.
That object creates it's own extra pressure due to it's mass displacing the atmosphere which has to compress back. It has to.
Just like placing a lead block in a bath tub. Your bath tub water will rise. Why?
Because the lead block has displaced its own area/density of water and that water has to go somewhere, which is does. It's added back onto the crush against the lead block and this would be what would be measured on a scale.
All you are doing is exactly the same thing except against atmosphere.

You have no explanation for what is causing this downwards force.
That is why no one "understands".
This is why no one can get beyond the basics, because you can't even complete the basics.

So again, in your model, why do things fall? Why don't they just float around?
Displacing the air provides no reason for them to be pushed down.

I believe I've explained. You refusing to grasp it is not my issue.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 19, 2018, 04:55:39 AM

it means exactly what it means.
empty tank.
fill it with water.
where's the confusion?

No confusion now. All you have to say was, fill an empty tank full of water. Simple.

Ok so let's get back to your original question now that I know what you fully mean.
I'll decipher it just so we are clear and we'll go from there if you agree this is what you mean.

Fill a pressurized water tank full of water.
Introduce a lead block of volume/ into that tank.
Inside is a scale.
Outside is a scale where the whole thing sits.

Weigh both situations.
Howuch the block weighs under pressure inside the tank.
How much the whole assembly weighs outside the tank.
Phuket world even gives you the answer.
Regardless of his result inference.

Ok, so first of all the lead block will measure whatever it's displaced mass of water is, inside the tank, barring any trapped atmosphere inside of the lead that creates a buoyancy.

With that same tank now placed onto an external scale plate for measurement we would have the tank itself displacing the atmosphere along with the lead and the internal scale, plus the water.
All of those objects have displaced the water in the tank so now we have the atmosphere basically displaced by the same mass, accounting for trapped atmosphere inside of the structures of the objects.

Probably not what you're looking for because you're looking for the text book answers.
A clue: Mine is not text book stuff.

Seems like a doable experiment: A couple of scales, a container, lead block and some water. So what is the expected den pressure result? And is it different from, let's say, a conventional gravitational result?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 18, 2018, 08:47:23 AM

A lot of what I'm saying can be seen working under controlled conditions/experiments.
They're simple but show the reality,a s far as I'm concerned.

Can you cite any specific experiments that exhibit the particulars of den pressure? If so, are they documented anywhere?

There's many simple experiments that prove denpressure but it's masked by a magical force told to you all as gravity.
Even though you have no clue what gravity is you adhere to it because it's an official line. It doesn't have to make any rational sense as long as the magic stacks up to show something.
The thing is, the magic show with the rabbit out of the hat is all well and good if you don't question how the rabbit magically appeared from a so called empty hat. Acceptance of the magic is fine if that's the way people want to go.
As time goes on though, some people want to figure out whether that magic is real or a trick.
That's where I'm at and I see it as the trick it is.

Now that's just a little dig at gravity and such.
As for experiments, it's about literally putting your mindset into gear and literally having the will to say " hmmmm, you know what, sod mainstream for now, let's look at this other side and see where this clown is coming from.2

Only then will you even bother to see the side I'm at.
You don;t have to adhere to it. Just undertstand it from the basics and as time goes on, the wider issue of it all.

The easiest place to start is with an evacuation chamber whether it's a bell jar and pump or a simple glass bottle that you supposedly suck on the top of to make it stick to your tongue or the Magdeburg hemispheres....etc.
Understand fully why they work from the basic in your face reasons and do not be put off by added in nonsense of fictional unexplainable forces.

Quote from: Stash on December 19, 2018, 04:24:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 18, 2018, 08:47:23 AM

A lot of what I'm saying can be seen working under controlled conditions/experiments.
They're simple but show the reality,a s far as I'm concerned.

Can you cite any specific experiments that exhibit the particulars of den pressure? If so, are they documented anywhere?

There's many simple experiments that prove denpressure but it's masked by a magical force told to you all as gravity.

Except that gravity and denspressure don't function the same, which means that there should be an experiment that shows that denspressure is true and gravity is false.

This isn't hard.

For example: 

Gravity Doesn't need Stacked Molecules.  Denspressure does.

So provide an experiment that shows that molecules stack.

Seems like a doable experiment: A couple of scales, a container, lead block and some water. So what is the expected den pressure result? And is it different from, let's say, a conventional gravitational result?

I don't know what you mean by gravitational result. Can you explain what this gravitational thing is to get whatever result you think it makes?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2018, 11:45:50 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 19, 2018, 04:24:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 18, 2018, 08:47:23 AM

A lot of what I'm saying can be seen working under controlled conditions/experiments.
They're simple but show the reality,a s far as I'm concerned.

Can you cite any specific experiments that exhibit the particulars of den pressure? If so, are they documented anywhere?

There's many simple experiments that prove denpressure but it's masked by a magical force told to you all as gravity.

Except that gravity and denspressure don't function the same, which means that there should be an experiment that shows that denspressure is true and gravity is false.

This isn't hard.

For example: 

Gravity Doesn't need Stacked Molecules.  Denspressure does.

So provide an experiment that shows that molecules stack.

Just as soon as you provide one that proves gravity.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 19, 2018, 11:51:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2018, 11:45:50 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 19, 2018, 04:24:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 18, 2018, 08:47:23 AM

A lot of what I'm saying can be seen working under controlled conditions/experiments.
They're simple but show the reality,a s far as I'm concerned.

Can you cite any specific experiments that exhibit the particulars of den pressure? If so, are they documented anywhere?

There's many simple experiments that prove denpressure but it's masked by a magical force told to you all as gravity.

Except that gravity and denspressure don't function the same, which means that there should be an experiment that shows that denspressure is true and gravity is false.

This isn't hard.

For example: 

Gravity Doesn't need Stacked Molecules.  Denspressure does.

So provide an experiment that shows that molecules stack.

Just as soon as you provide one that proves gravity.

Well first, the topic is called den pressure - definable hypothesis & experiments

The topic isn't about gravity, it's about denspressure.

Nice cop out though.

But to answer it:


Cavendish.  Now where is yours.

Well first, the topic is called den pressure - definable hypothesis & experiments

The topic isn't about gravity, it's about denspressure.

Nice cop out though.

But to answer it:


Cavendish.  Now where is yours.

Tell me what Cavendish proves.
And yeah, this is about denpressure but you people persist in using gravity so I'll call you on it.

Ok, so mass moves towards mass on a pivot.
Tell me how this proves gravity and then tell me what that gravity is as a force.

It's fine if you accept you can't. And then I'll move on and explain stacking...but bear in mind it has to be an analogy used due to the fact that seeing molecules stack is just not feasible considering we can't see them due to our eyes being part of them.

Tell me what Cavendish proves.

Gravity

And yeah, this is about denpressure but you people persist in using gravity so I'll call you on it.

Ok, so mass moves towards mass on a pivot.
Tell me how this proves gravity and then tell me what that gravity is as a force.

It's fine if you accept you can't. And then I'll move on and explain stacking...but bear in mind it has to be an analogy used due to the fact that seeing molecules stack is just not feasible considering we can't see them due to our eyes being part of them.

What is an experiment that exhibits den pressure and can't be confused with, "Oh, that's just gravity."?

For that we invent a way to measure that mass.

And for that there are many different ways. One way links to inertia, where you measure how much force is required to accelerate it.
The other is based upon weight, where if you know the value of g, or you have a comparison and can account for buoyancy, then you can measure it.
The fact that we can measure it doesn't magically mean it is made up.
Mass and weight are real and exist independent of measurement.

You measure the water displacement.

Which only works if the ship floats, as it is displacing its mass in water.

If it takes effort to pick up an object them that same effort will be required to hold the object, meaning you are holding an object that displacing the atmosphere it takes up at any point.
That atmosphere is acting back onto the object and is trying to compress it back to the foundation but you've become that foundation for as long as you hold it.

And that would mean if I am holding it from above, which can happen transiently such as when you are bouncing a basketball, the atmosphere should be pushing it into my hand and I should need to force it down. But the atmosphere is also pushing my hand down, which cancels is out meaning no force and I should just be able to hold it up.
If I let it go so it is in the air, then the air is pushing all around and it should just stay floating.

No floating as you say.

You are yet to provide a reason why it shouldn't float.

The atmosphere is stacked. There is more atmosphere above you and around you than below you.

So? That is merely a result of being near the bottom of the atmosphere. It doesn't magically mean it pushes me down.

Any energy pushing into that atmosphere will compress it, whether it's expanded matter or dense objects.

Again, that requires the matter to pop into existence from no where.
If it already exists, it is already pushing into the atmosphere. Moving it around isn't magically pushing into more atmosphere, it is just pushing into different atmosphere, and the pressure of the atmosphere pushes back, in all directions.

will crush it

Yes, and that crushing is in all directions. Again, a plastic bottle is a good example of that. If it is a lower pressure inside it can easily be crushed by the atmosphere pushing in and it does so in all directions, not just downwards.

So again, this does not provide a reason for a downwards force, and thus if you let go of an object it should just stay floating. If you jump, you should float.

just like the water will crush back against the ship and you get your buoyancy you're looking for.

Again, we have been over this. That is because there is a greater pressure the lower you are, something you are yet to account for/explain why it happens, and this ALWAYS result in an upwards force, even in air. It NEVER results in a downwards force.
In order to get a downwards force in the atmosphere the atmosphere would need to be inverted, being a higher pressure the higher you are.
And you would still need to explain that.


Stop just saying pressed and crushed and so on. You have provided absolutely no justification for any directionality other than the upwards force due to buoyancy.

You said things don't just appear from nowhere, so I gave you a tree growing from underground then out of the ground.

And the tree doesn't just magically gain that matter. It is simply moving it. As such, according to you it is displacing the same amount of air.

Or are you going to claim objects don't displace atmosphere underground and thus if you go underground you will be weightless?

There's no magic about it.

Until you provide an actual justification, explaining why things are pushed down, it is magic.

You place any object into that atmosphere

Again, the object is already in the atmosphere.
As such, no extra energy should be required in your model.
Even if it did magically require energy, that still provides no justification for why the object should be pushed down.

I believe I've explained. You refusing to grasp it is not my issue.

You believing something doesn't magically make it true.
You have repeatedly failed to explain why things go down.
Instead you just repeatedly assert the same magic downwards push from nothing.

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

Tell me what Cavendish proves.

Gravity

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

And yeah, this is about denpressure but you people persist in using gravity so I'll call you on it.

Ok, so mass moves towards mass on a pivot.
Tell me how this proves gravity and then tell me what that gravity is as a force.

It's fine if you accept you can't. And then I'll move on and explain stacking...but bear in mind it has to be an analogy used due to the fact that seeing molecules stack is just not feasible considering we can't see them due to our eyes being part of them.

What is an experiment that exhibits den pressure and can't be confused with, "Oh, that's just gravity."?

Nothing at all if people want to adhere to a force that cannot be explained.
I have absolutely no chance whatsoever of explaining anything to anyone on denpressure if they simply think, gravity.
The whole point of it is to prove that denpressure can easily show gravity to be  nothing other than the magical force it's been touted as.

This can be done with simple experiments but once a person comes in and says " yeah but all that happens because of gravity" then it's pointless.

People just seem to want to stick to mainstream nonsense on this stuff...which is fine. It's absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned...but at least don't bother with me if the premise is simply on a refusal to understand my side by deliberate use of the gravity nonsense.

Basically leave it to those who legitimately want to question the schooling we were all forced into.

The only reason scepti doesn't provide an experiment that proves denspressure is because he doesn't have one.

Everytime he is asked, he asks for an experiment that proves gravity first.  He deflects because that is all he can do.

The only experiments that scepti has are thought experiments.

You can prove me wrong scepti, by providing an experiment that shows denspressure is correct.

The only reason scepti doesn't provide an experiment that proves denspressure is because he doesn't have one.

Everytime he is asked, he asks for an experiment that proves gravity first.  He deflects because that is all he can do.

The only experiments that scepti has are thought experiments.

You can prove me wrong scepti, by providing an experiment that shows denspressure is correct.

So basically, sure, let's go with Cavendish for starters, and that's really just priming the pump, as it were. That's 1 in the gravity column.

Den pressure, experiment-wise, nil.

So Scepti, regardless of what you think about Canvendish, you should be able to offer up just 1 experiment that even remotely supports even a tenet of den pressure. You have yet to name just one.

Quote from: Stash on December 20, 2018, 12:17:54 AM

What is an experiment that exhibits den pressure and can't be confused with, "Oh, that's just gravity."?

Nothing at all if people want to adhere to a force that cannot be explained.
I have absolutely no chance whatsoever of explaining anything to anyone on denpressure if they simply think, gravity.
The whole point of it is to prove that denpressure can easily show gravity to be nothing other than the magical force it's been touted as.

The behaviour of gravitation is very well known to those who don't simply close their eyes to it,
The strength of gravitation is very well known to those who don't simply close their eyes to it because it has been measured numerous times.

Do you believe that electrostatic forces are genuine? If so, why would they be genuine but gravitation "the magical force it's been touted as".
Gravitation is no more magical and no less genuine that electrostatic forces.

The only reason you and other flat earthers reject gravitation is that it proves the that the earth cannot be flat.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 20, 2018, 12:37:51 AM

The only reason scepti doesn't provide an experiment that proves denspressure is because he doesn't have one.

Everytime he is asked, he asks for an experiment that proves gravity first.  He deflects because that is all he can do.

The only experiments that scepti has are thought experiments.

You can prove me wrong scepti, by providing an experiment that shows denspressure is correct.

So basically, sure, let's go with Cavendish for starters, and that's really just priming the pump, as it were. That's 1 in the gravity column.

Den pressure, experiment-wise, nil.

So Scepti, regardless of what you think about Canvendish, you should be able to offer up just 1 experiment that even remotely supports even a tenet of den pressure. You have yet to name just one.

how can I offer up an experiment for people who refuse to accept anything other than gravity at work?
It doesn't matter what I offer up to gravity lovers. Anything I offer up will be put down to gravity being the cause and effect of, yet....like I've said, none of you know what it is and yet you lot think I'm deflecting.
I'm only deflecting because you lot are deflecting.

The behaviour of gravitation is very well known to those who don't simply close their eyes to it,
The strength of gravitation is very well known to those who don't simply close their eyes to it because it has been measured numerous times.

Something's been measured and gravitation/gravity has been assigned to that measurement without the slightest clue as to what it is. It's a nonsense.

Do you believe that electrostatic forces are genuine? If so, why would they be genuine but gravitation "the magical force it's been touted as".

  Do you know what electrostatic forces are?

Gravitation is no more magical and no less genuine that electrostatic forces.

Gravitation is a made up word to describe fictional force to cater for the logical forces all around us, but to also dupe us with a so called universe full of stars and planets, etc...not to mention a reason for a global Earth. It's utter nonsense.

The only reason you and other flat earthers reject gravitation is that it proves the that the earth cannot be flat.

No. The reason why I reject it is because it's literally bogus and does not prove anything.
If anything it's used to hide the Earth's true shape...or potential true shape.

To hide maybe the horror of us living in a cell and trapped rather than living on a ball and able to travel away from it as if we were free to do so.

how can I offer up an experiment for people who refuse to accept anything other than gravity at work?

If your model is no better than gravity, we have no reason to use your model, which was made up solely to avoid gravity.

If you want anyone to take your model seriously, as well as providing a reason as to why things fall, you need to provide some kind of test which allows us to distinguish it from gravity.
That is why things falling is actually a poor test of gravity. A better one is Cavendish which shows that masses attract other masses, i.e. GRAVITY!

So provide an experiment where your model and gravity gives different results.
An example of such a test, at least if your model was coherent was that or a mercury barometer or the like, which should show the same level regardless of air pressure.
Or show that weight varies with pressure.
Unfortunately, neither of those results match what a simple interpretation of your model predicts.

The issue isn't us and gravity. It is using making up a nonsense model which you are completely unable to defend or justify and are quite to manipulate or lie about to pretend it matches reality.
But you can't even get past the very basic "why do things fall?"
You would be far better off ditching any connection to the atmosphere/pressure and instead just using some force pushing things down.


So can you provide either? An experiment or test which could be conducted to distinguish between the predicted effects of gravity, which if you are sticking to the low energy limit would be predicted by F=GMm/r^2, and your model, which seems to be magic down force?
Or are you able to explain the origin of the downwards force? And no, displacing the atmosphere is not the origin. You are either spouting something completely irrelevant or a missing steps in the middle to explain why displacing the atmosphere causes a downwards force. We know it isn't the atmosphere crushing the object, as that goes in, not down.

Quote from: rabinoz

The only reason you and other flat earthers reject gravitation is that it proves the that the earth cannot be flat.

No. The reason why I reject it is because it's literally bogus and does not prove anything.
If anything it's used to hide the Earth's true shape...or potential true shape.

Hardly! Since the "earth's true shape" and the only one that fits so many simple observations is close to a perfect sphere.
And you have never proven otherwise.

To hide maybe the horror of us living in a cell and trapped rather than living on a ball and able to travel away from it as if we were free to do so.

In my opinion you are the one afraid of facing a huge Universe, so you and other flat-earthers invert a small enclosed one.

But we are always going to disagree so I'll leave you in peace.
I do, however, wonder why, if your denpressure is so wonderful, that other flat-earthers don't flock to support it.

Quote from: Stash on December 20, 2018, 12:48:57 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 20, 2018, 12:37:51 AM

The only reason scepti doesn't provide an experiment that proves denspressure is because he doesn't have one.

Everytime he is asked, he asks for an experiment that proves gravity first.  He deflects because that is all he can do.

The only experiments that scepti has are thought experiments.

You can prove me wrong scepti, by providing an experiment that shows denspressure is correct.

So basically, sure, let's go with Cavendish for starters, and that's really just priming the pump, as it were. That's 1 in the gravity column.

Den pressure, experiment-wise, nil.

So Scepti, regardless of what you think about Canvendish, you should be able to offer up just 1 experiment that even remotely supports even a tenet of den pressure. You have yet to name just one.

how can I offer up an experiment for people who refuse to accept anything other than gravity at work?
It doesn't matter what I offer up to gravity lovers. Anything I offer up will be put down to gravity being the cause and effect of, yet....like I've said, none of you know what it is and yet you lot think I'm deflecting.
I'm only deflecting because you lot are deflecting.

So let's look at it this way. Cavendish experiment exhibits what convention thinks of as gravity; masses attract each other, calculations ensue, blah, blah, blah. Fine. But CavendishX does not exhibit any semblance of den pressure. So, is there an experiment that exhibits den pressure, but does not exhibit gravity?

how can I offer up an experiment for people who refuse to accept anything other than gravity at work?
It doesn't matter what I offer up to gravity lovers. Anything I offer up will be put down to gravity being the cause and effect of, yet....like I've said, none of you know what it is and yet you lot think I'm deflecting.
I'm only deflecting because you lot are deflecting.

You don’t offer up an experiment because you don’t have an experiment.  AAMOF, you can’t possibly have an experiment for prove denpressure because denpressure just plain does not exist.  That’s why when asked you will never produced an experiment to show that it is molecule stacking that keeps us anchored to the ground.

Here are a few facts:

The fact is that the Cavendish experiment proves there an attractive force between masses.  Another fact is that attractive force is consistent with gravity.  By consistent I mean it value of the gravitational constant calculated from the experiment is within 1% of known value (although, admittedly when I did the experiment in high school we were off by a little over 2%). 

Another fact is the Cavendish experiment results are quantifiable and repeatable.  By quantifiable I mean you can calculate the results of masses introduced into the experiment and those calculations will match the experiment results.  And, by repeatable I mean that anyone can do this experiment and get the same value for the gravitational constant and the same results time after time.  However, you are correct in one sense that the Cavendish does not define what gravity is or what the source of the attractive force is.

The Cavendish experiment proves that masses attract consistent the law of gravity.  Therefore, it is an experiment that anyone can do as.  While it does not define what the source of the force it is nonetheless proof that a force exists and predicts its exact value; which is a far sight more than anything you’ve got for denpressure.

The final fact is that the Cavendish experiment proves that masses attract.  I know that the only logical explanation is gravity.  However, regardless of the fact you don't believe in gravity, you can't ignore the inescapable fact that masses attract and the Cavendish experiment proves that in a quantifiable and repeatable manner...something you can’t possibly explain with denpressure.

Mike

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2018, 01:32:31 AM

how can I offer up an experiment for people who refuse to accept anything other than gravity at work?

If your model is no better than gravity, we have no reason to use your model, which was made up solely to avoid gravity.

Nobody uses my model and likely never will, in it's basic way. They will still use fictional gravity in place of it. So I'm under no illusions about that.

If you want anyone to take your model seriously, as well as providing a reason as to why things fall, you need to provide some kind of test which allows us to distinguish it from gravity.

Whoever takes my model seriously will be the one's that actually take the time to understand it all.
Anyone that wants to ridicule it or simply dismiss it, are free to do so and are welcome to do that.
My theory will still be there and still be worked upon, regardless.

That is why things falling is actually a poor test of gravity. A better one is Cavendish which shows that masses attract other masses, i.e. GRAVITY!

But mass do not attract masses unless they're on a pivot, when level.
Gravity is said to drag things down to the centre of Earth but the so called Cavendish experiment is supposed to tell us it happens horizontally with balanced objects moving towards another set of objects and we are told  "it's gravity."

It's the central energy of the Earth's carbon arc that creates a whirlpool that creates outer atmospheric minute movement under pressure that can easily make any object move on a pivot over a period of time.

So provide an experiment where your model and gravity gives different results.

What results does your fictional gravity give out?

An example of such a test, at least if your model was coherent was that or a mercury barometer or the like, which should show the same level regardless of air pressure.
Or show that weight varies with pressure.

Measured weight of mass does vary with pressure.
A barometer clearly shows this and the reading of it is via mercury being pushed up a tube to sit against a set number or whatever.
That is clearly to do with atmospheric pressure pushing on the mercury and the mercury resisting that push, except for the breach in the tube that hampers that resistance.
The more pressure the more push.
No gravity required. And yes I'm using it because you keep doing it.

Unfortunately, neither of those results match what a simple interpretation of your model predicts.

Yes they do.

The issue isn't us and gravity. It is using making up a nonsense model which you are completely unable to defend or justify and are quite to manipulate or lie about to pretend it matches reality.
But you can't even get past the very basic "why do things fall?"

I'm defending it very well. You not quite understanding it is the problem from your side...not mine.

You would be far better off ditching any connection to the atmosphere/pressure and instead just using some force pushing things down.

I would if I had a mind to do that but I'd be going against a model I believe in and a model that, to me, shows the reality or at least the potential reality of what we live in....not on.

So can you provide either? An experiment or test which could be conducted to distinguish between the predicted effects of gravity, which if you are sticking to the low energy limit would be predicted by F=GMm/r^2, and your model, which seems to be magic down force?

What are the predicted effects of your gravity?
Just outline it all so I'm absolutely sure about it.
We are walking side by side and you have the tools to show me the predicted effects of your gravity.
Try not to cop out of it.

Or are you able to explain the origin of the downwards force?
 And no, displacing the atmosphere is not the origin.

Displacing the atmosphere is the origin. You do not get a weight measurement if you do not displace the atmosphere with an y object, using applied energy/force to place that object into it and onto a foundation plate that can react to that energy/force and show a man made scale reading.

You are either spouting something completely irrelevant or a missing steps in the middle to explain why displacing the atmosphere causes a downwards force. We know it isn't the atmosphere crushing the object, as that goes in, not down.

I may be missing a lot of stuff in my explanations but I have to keep using analogies after analogies and what not to actually try to explain to different people, as well as adding much more on and in depth to those that simply cannot grasp the reality in one way but can seem to understand water displacement.
Weirdly atmospheric displacement by an object seems to go right over many people's heads and yet they'll happily scream out "gravity" regardless of whether they realise it cannot be explained as a force.
It's text book and that's good enough for them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2018, 01:44:00 AM

Quote from: rabinoz

The only reason you and other flat earthers reject gravitation is that it proves the that the earth cannot be flat.

No. The reason why I reject it is because it's literally bogus and does not prove anything.
If anything it's used to hide the Earth's true shape...or potential true shape.

Hardly! Since the "earth's true shape" and the only one that fits so many simple observations is close to a perfect sphere.
And you have never proven otherwise.

Your Earth does not fit into any simple observations. That's the point. It fits into a narrative and is argued from that mass opinion of made up nonsense (in my honest opinion).
The real observations basically scupper a globe by literal logic and literal sight...etc.

Quote from: sceptimatic

To hide maybe the horror of us living in a cell and trapped rather than living on a ball and able to travel away from it as if we were free to do so.

In my opinion you are the one afraid of facing a huge Universe, so you and other flat-earthers invert a small enclosed one.

I'm not in fear of any which way this Earth could be. I'm simply telling it how I see it by process of elimination...especially of the global nonsense spouted by so called theoretical scientists of mainstream.

denpressure[/i] is so wonderful, that other flat-earthers don't flock to support it.

I don't recall any flat Earth theorists bothering to look into it. Maybe it bores them. But at least they don't come in to try and scupper it. Globalists try to scupper it with gusto. A frenzy at times. A deluge of ridicule en masse, at times.

Why?
To learn it or to ensure people don't start to grasp it?
If it's such a nonsense idea then nobody should be giving me an iota of their time. Why argue it against their supposed known gravity?

But here we are arguing it.
Think about that.

So let's look at it this way. Cavendish experiment exhibits what convention thinks of as gravity; masses attract each other, calculations ensue, blah, blah, blah. Fine. But CavendishX does not exhibit any semblance of den pressure. So, is there an experiment that exhibits den pressure, but does not exhibit gravity?

Let's say we are sat in  a room. You have the Cavendish experiment in front of you. I ask what it is and you explain that it's going to show mass being attracted to mass.
I ask what it proves.
You say gravity.
I ask how you can prove it's gravity and do you have absolute proof of it so when I walk away I can be under no illusions about anything other than what you tell me.


Over to you.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 19, 2018, 04:55:39 AM

it means exactly what it means.
empty tank.
fill it with water.
where's the confusion?

No confusion now. All you have to say was, fill an empty tank full of water. Simple.

Ok so let's get back to your original question now that I know what you fully mean.
I'll decipher it just so we are clear and we'll go from there if you agree this is what you mean.

Fill a pressurized water tank full of water.
Introduce a lead block of volume/ into that tank.
Inside is a scale.
Outside is a scale where the whole thing sits.

Weigh both situations.
Howuch the block weighs under pressure inside the tank.
How much the whole assembly weighs outside the tank.
Phuket world even gives you the answer.
Regardless of his result inference.

Ok, so first of all the lead block will measure whatever it's displaced mass of water is, inside the tank, barring any trapped atmosphere inside of the lead that creates a buoyancy.

With that same tank now placed onto an external scale plate for measurement we would have the tank itself displacing the atmosphere along with the lead and the internal scale, plus the water.
All of those objects have displaced the water in the tank so now we have the atmosphere basically displaced by the same mass, accounting for trapped atmosphere inside of the structures of the objects.

Probably not what you're looking for because you're looking for the text book answers.
A clue: Mine is not text book stuff.

Pressure tank (not pressurized).
Typo on my part.
The tank is sealed against atmoshphere.

Rab or jackb would coreect me if im worgn but
The scale in the tank would show didfernet lead block tare weight than external scale.

Then we can pressurize the tank by forcing more water into it.
Bump it up to 15psig.
Would the lead block weigh more?
No.
Pressuization doesnt affsct.

Does NOT need to be a thought experiment.
It is a real possible test.
Wxamples on youtube

You don’t offer up an experiment because you don’t have an experiment.

A simple barometer is one experiment.

AAMOF, you can’t possibly have an experiment for prove denpressure because denpressure just plain does not exist.

In your mind, maybe. In my mind it more than exists. It is doing what it's expected from my side.
Without it we cannot survive.
We certainly couldn't survive with supposed helium just supposedly leaking into space like we're told.
It's funny and sad at the same time that people fall for the global mumbo jumbo, nonsense.

  That’s why when asked you will never produced an experiment to show that it is molecule stacking that keeps us anchored to the ground.

I think there's enough experiments that prove it. I've put it to plenty of people to do some of them. Some pretend to try and some just don;t listen....or shall I say, deliberately don't listen.

Here are a few facts:

The fact is that the Cavendish experiment proves there an attractive force between masses.

Yep. The issue is knowing what that force is.....because it isn't fictional gravity.

  Another fact is that attractive force is consistent with gravity.
 By consistent I mean it value of the gravitational constant calculated from the experiment is within 1% of known value (although, admittedly when I did the experiment in high school we were off by a little over 2%).

Tell me about this gravitational constant and this 1% or 2% discrepancy that you claim is consistent with this known value.
 Explain it to this dummy please. Remember, I'm a dummy so as basic as you possible can.

Another fact is the Cavendish experiment results are quantifiable and repeatable.
 By quantifiable I mean you can calculate the results of masses introduced into the experiment and those calculations will match the experiment results.  And, by repeatable I mean that anyone can do this experiment and get the same value for the gravitational constant and the same results time after time.  However, you are correct in one sense that the Cavendish does not define what gravity is or what the source of the attractive force is.

Of course the Cavendish experiment doesn't define what gravity is. There's a reason for that.

The Cavendish experiment proves that masses attract consistent the law of gravity.  Therefore, it is an experiment that anyone can do as.  While it does not define what the source of the force it is nonetheless proof that a force exists and predicts its exact value; which is a far sight more than anything you’ve got for denpressure.

I agree it's proof that a force exists. I've never denied that.
The force is not gravity because gravity is nonsense. It's used to dupe us into a belief of a global Earth and space/universe in the way we are schooled to accept it. It's utter utter nonsense.

If I ask you to tell me what gravity is as a force...what is your answer?

The final fact is that the Cavendish experiment proves that masses attract.  I know that the only logical explanation is gravity.  However, regardless of the fact you don't believe in gravity, you can't ignore the inescapable fact that masses attract and the Cavendish experiment proves that in a quantifiable and repeatable manner...something you can’t possibly explain with denpressure.

Mike

But I have explained it with denpressure. The whirlpool effect.

Pressure tank (not pressurized).
Typo on my part.
The tank is sealed against atmoshphere.

Rab or jackb would coreect me if im worgn but
The scale in the tank would show didfernet lead block tare weight than external scale.

Then we can pressurize the tank by forcing more water into it.
Bump it up to 15psig.
Would the lead block weigh more?
No.
Pressuization doesnt affsct.

Does NOT need to be a thought experiment.
It is a real possible test.
Wxamples on youtube

Is the tank sealed against atmosphere with trapped atmosphere inside at original atmospheric pressure...say 15 psi?
And then you have scales inside of it as well?
And then you force water into that sealed tank via a valve to compress the atmosphere already trapped inside.

Is this what you are getting at?

Let me know and I'll answer it.

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 20, 2018, 04:23:39 AM

You don’t offer up an experiment because you don’t have an experiment.

A simple barometer is one experiment.

Quote from: MicroBeta

AAMOF, you can’t possibly have an experiment for prove denpressure because denpressure just plain does not exist.

In your mind, maybe. In my mind it more than exists. It is doing what it's expected from my side.
Without it we cannot survive.
We certainly couldn't survive with supposed helium just supposedly leaking into space like we're told.
It's funny and sad at the same time that people fall for the global mumbo jumbo, nonsense.

Quote from: MicroBeta

  That’s why when asked you will never produced an experiment to show that it is molecule stacking that keeps us anchored to the ground.

I think there's enough experiments that prove it. I've put it to plenty of people to do some of them. Some pretend to try and some just don;t listen....or shall I say, deliberately don't listen.

You have never produced any experiments that prove molecule stacking is a thing.  You’ve only produced analogies; none of which prove, or even hint at the possibility of, denpressure being the driving force.

To be clear, you have never produced a single experiment or even an analogy that proves there is such a thing a molecule stacking.  NOT EVER! 

Personally, I have a hard spot with you using molecules as your alternate explanation for gravity.  You don’t believe in atoms but do believe in molecules?  You say you don’t believe in anything you can’t observe and explain through clear logic...yet somehow you believe in molecules...something you can’t see, touch, or observe.  Interesting.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Here are a few facts:

The fact is that the Cavendish experiment proves there an attractive force between masses.

Yep. The issue is knowing what that force is.....because it isn't fictional gravity.

Another thing I find interesting is how adamant that gravity doesn’t exist when you haven’t show any observation or reasoning why it doesn’t fit observations around us.  You dismiss it, refuse to consider it’s possibility, but never once have you shown any reason to suspect that it doesn’t exist.  Why is that?

Quote from: MicroBeta

  Another fact is that attractive force is consistent with gravity.
 By consistent I mean it value of the gravitational constant calculated from the experiment is within 1% of known value (although, admittedly when I did the experiment in high school we were off by a little over 2%).

Tell me about this gravitational constant and this 1% or 2% discrepancy that you claim is consistent with this known value.
 Explain it to this dummy please. Remember, I'm a dummy so as basic as you possible can.

G= 6.67408x10^-11 m³/kgs² and the results of the Cavendish experiment will result in a value ±1% of that number.  What's so hard about experiment results being ± some amount of a known value?

However, I’m not taking the bate and getting into a protracted discussion about a single value while you avoid the implications of the Cavendish experiment.

Quote from: MicroBeta

Another fact is the Cavendish experiment results are quantifiable and repeatable.
 By quantifiable I mean you can calculate the results of masses introduced into the experiment and those calculations will match the experiment results.  And, by repeatable I mean that anyone can do this experiment and get the same value for the gravitational constant and the same results time after time.  However, you are correct in one sense that the Cavendish does not define what gravity is or what the source of the attractive force is.

Of course the Cavendish experiment doesn't define what gravity is. There's a reason for that.

The reason is that his experiment was meant to calculate the density of the earth.  It just so happened to be a proof of gravity.

However, defining the force of gravity is nothing but a red herring.  We both know you can’t define the forces involved in denpressue either so how about you just quit with the misdirection tactics.

Quote from: MicroBeta

The Cavendish experiment proves that masses attract consistent the law of gravity.  Therefore, it is an experiment that anyone can do as.  While it does not define what the source of the force it is nonetheless proof that a force exists and predicts its exact value; which is a far sight more than anything you’ve got for denpressure.

I agree it's proof that a force exists. I've never denied that.
The force is not gravity because gravity is nonsense. It's used to dupe us into a belief of a global Earth and space/universe in the way we are schooled to accept it. It's utter utter nonsense.

I find interesting is how adamant that gravity doesn’t exist when you haven’t show any observation or reasoning why it doesn’t fit observations around us.  You dismiss it, refuse to consider it as a possibility, but you never shown anything for which the law of gravity doesn't work.  Why is that?

If I ask you to tell me what gravity is as a force...what is your answer?

As for the definition of gravity, which would you prefer?  The traditional definition that it is the force that causes all bodies to attract each other proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, or the general relativity version where it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass in the universe?

Either way, and here is the really important point, you cannot define denpressure in any more precise terms than I can gravity.  But, in typical hypocritical fashion, you demand such precision from me while are unable to provide the same for denpressure.  Heck, as sure as you are about it, you should be able define denpressure with even greater precision because you claim it is a more likely theory than theory...but you can’t.  Very Interesting.

Quote from: MicroBeta

The final fact is that the Cavendish experiment proves that masses attract.  I know that the only logical explanation is gravity.  However, regardless of the fact you don't believe in gravity, you can't ignore the inescapable fact that masses attract and the Cavendish experiment proves that in a quantifiable and repeatable manner...something you can’t possibly explain with denpressure.

Mike

But I have explained it with denpressure. The whirlpool effect.

Whirlpool effect?  You’ve got to be kidding!  You can no more support such an absurd statement then you can bench press a Steinway.  Did you even think about it before making such a childish statement? 

Here is just a few reasons why your silly-ass whirlpool effect is just strawman-garbage. 
- In the typical commercially available apparatus the torsion balance is contained with a chamber so that it isn’t subject to random air currents. 
- You can vary the placement of the masses to cause the balance to move in either direction...so definitely not subject to silly-ass whirlpools.
- And, one of the biggest reasons: you couldn’t possibly support such a silly assertion let alone justify how it could produce quantifiable, repeatable results in the Cavendish experiment no matter when, where, or how the experiment is preformed.

I’ve read a lot of unverifiable crap on this forum but a silly-ass whirlpool effect takes the cake.

Mike