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

Quote from: Stash on December 21, 2018, 02:23:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2018, 12:20:20 AM

Ok fair enough. Where did you observe this experiment and can you tell me what was done and how it was done, with whatever mass used in the experiment...etc

Actually the question is quite simple and you have yet to address it. Is there an experiment that demonstrates den pressure that can't be readily also easily explained by another phenomenon?

a) Yes
b) No

Me thinks the answer is b. That being the case all you have is a notion that you believe replicates what is commonly referred to as gravitation. And without being able to demonstrate any distinguishing capabilities of den pressure all you have is a notion. And that notion has a whole host of reliant phenomena required that has never been observed by humans, e.g., crystals, domes, arc something or other, etc. It's nothing more than middle earth, GoT's fantastical fiction.

It's fine to hold a world view that is contrary to convention, be skeptical of what we are taught, etc. But at the end of the day, there are no distinguishing empirical experiments to support your notion. Nor is there any empirically derived evidence of all the other elements required to support your notion. So believe what you want, but it's not science. It's unsupported by anything other than you just saying so. That just won't do.

a or b?

(A)...
The mercury barometer is one massive proof. It's right there in your face but you choose gravity for no other reason than your text books and word of mass mouth or peers to pressure you into following that narrative.

That's as simple as it gets.

Don't take that as a dig because we were all brainwashed with a lot of it during our lives. I'm just old enough to realise how badly duped we are, so now I question it all and try and reason an alternative.

You'll never ever change my mind on the global system even if we lived another 1000 years. There's no spinning globe and no gravity.
Denpressure inside the cell we are all in as bacteria with a central energy core, fits much better and requires no magical notions. In my opinion of course.

Never say never.  If you had the opportunity to that an orbital or sub-orbital flight...that would certainly change your mind.

Not that it matters because the flat earth-round earth debate will soon be over.  Space tourism is coming and sub-orbital flights are just around the corner.  It's not long until we're able to on week trips to orbit the moon and back.  I know you don’t believe it now but space tourism will be the final nail in the coffin for the flat earth movement.

On a side note, if you're so open minded and free thinking then there is no subject for which you shouldn't be willing to change your mind given the proper evidence.  IOW, whether it's the shape of the earth or how bagels are made, you should never be 100% convinced of anything...I'm just sayin'

Mike

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 05:11:09 AM

Volume density blah.
Like i said before - Keep changing word meanings and continue to be misunderstood.   Aw poor you.   Not my issue.

Try and understand it and you might move forward. As it is you're at square one.
Your blah blah's don't help you and certainly don't matter to me.

Quote from: Themightykabool

But enpugh of that.
no more red herrings.

How does an air pump work?

You've had that explained to you. Look back and find it and next time take notice instead of looking fo back pats from so called internet scientist friends when you have a little dig. It doesn't help you but does make me smile.

Quote from: Themightykabool

What happens to the air inside a pressure vessel when its pumped out?

This has also been explained to you.
Your memory is terrible.

Yes
Has been explained somehwat.
I have a pretty good memory.
It was a Rehoritcal leading the question to the breathing question...

Vacuum doesnt exist and neither do your chances at wining the power ball lottery.

Exactly, because I do not do the powerball.

Near nothing is almost almost and can be considerred nothing when compared... but that is a red herring because youve defined molecules as stacking unstacking and expanding.

It's not a red herring it's a fact that a vacuum cannot exist. Everything is attached with absolutely no free space. So almost this and considered nothing, etc, is pointless.

But yo claim air doesnt actually move.wahts going on?
Dodge somemore

I've never claimed air doesn't move. You've decided it doesn't for some reason.
Feel free to bring up where I said it seeing as you are pushing this a lot.

It is perfectly reasonable if you say "i dont have an answer for that".

I will if I don't have one.

  If you had the opportunity to that an orbital or sub-orbital flight...that would certainly change your mind.

Yep, it certainly would. Riding on a unicorn would make me accept them as well, so we will have to wait and see, eh?

Not that it matters because the flat earth-round earth debate will soon be over.  Space tourism is coming and sub-orbital flights are just around the corner.

Yep, it's been coming for.....how long?....As we are constantly told.

It's not long until we're able to on week trips to orbit the moon and back.  I know you don’t believe it now but space tourism will be the final nail in the coffin for the flat earth movement.

It certainly will be. As I said earlier, unicorns will also dispel a myth. It's just a waiting game.

On a side note, if you're so open minded and free thinking then there is no subject for which you shouldn't be willing to change your mind given the proper evidence.  IOW, whether it's the shape of the earth or how bagels are made, you should never be 100% convinced of anything...I'm just sayin'

Mike

I'm willing to change anything I look into. I changed my stance on a spinning globe when I accepted it without question in my early days.
I chose a stationary globe and looked into all the flat Earth theories, as well as alternate Earth theories.
This is how I'm at where I'm at. I looked at them all and tried to make sense of them all.
I gleaned a lot from them all and pieced together my own theory/hypothesis/musing or whatever name anyone wants to bestow on it.

You see, the one that should be willing to change....is the likes of you. You're the closed minded one, but you cannot see that.

Yes
Has been explained somehwat.
I have a pretty good memory.
It was a Rehoritcal leading the question to the breathing question...

You need to understand what you're arguing before you start on the human body.
It's as if you're embarrassed at not grasping basics so you try and use something that you think will scupper me.
Get to the basics.
Understand the evacuation of molecules from my side and you might move on with some insight to be able to genuinely argue it and even question the stuff you were bullied into at school.

Wow, is this going to make it as another >100 page den pressure thread?!?

I can't take the excitement, I'm off to lie down.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 05:56:02 AM

Vacuum doesnt exist and neither do your chances at wining the power ball lottery.

Exactly, because I do not do the powerball.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Near nothing is almost almost and can be considerred nothing when compared... but that is a red herring because youve defined molecules as stacking unstacking and expanding.

It's not a red herring it's a fact that a vacuum cannot exist. Everything is attached with absolutely no free space. So almost this and considered nothing, etc, is pointless.

Quote from: Themightykabool

But yo claim air doesnt actually move.wahts going on?
Dodge somemore

I've never claimed air doesn't move. You've decided it doesn't for some reason.
Feel free to bring up where I said it seeing as you are pushing this a lot.

Well maybe you got somememory problems.
Possibly answering both questions backtoback will show my issue.

You stated a pump can not void the air out of a vessel.
Instead the air becomes depressurized or deweighted or unstacked.
If a pump cant move air, im a little concerned about how we manage to breathe.
If this is incorrect let us know.

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 21, 2018, 05:59:37 AM

  If you had the opportunity to that an orbital or sub-orbital flight...that would certainly change your mind.

Yep, it certainly would. Riding on a unicorn would make me accept them as well, so we will have to wait and see, eh?

Quote from: MicroBeta

Not that it matters because the flat earth-round earth debate will soon be over.  Space tourism is coming and sub-orbital flights are just around the corner.

Yep, it's been coming for.....how long?....As we are constantly told.

Quote from: MicroBeta

It's not long until we're able to on week trips to orbit the moon and back.  I know you don't believe it now but space tourism will be the final nail in the coffin for the flat earth movement.

It certainly will be. As I said earlier, unicorns will also dispel a myth. It's just a waiting game.

Quote from: MicroBeta

On a side note, if you're so open minded and free thinking then there is no subject for which you shouldn't be willing to change your mind given the proper evidence.  IOW, whether it's the shape of the earth or how bagels are made, you should never be 100% convinced of anything...I'm just sayin'

Mike

I'm willing to change anything I look into. I changed my stance on a spinning globe when I accepted it without question in my early days.
I chose a stationary globe and looked into all the flat Earth theories, as well as alternate Earth theories.
This is how I'm at where I'm at. I looked at them all and tried to make sense of them all.
I gleaned a lot from them all and pieced together my own theory/hypothesis/musing or whatever name anyone wants to bestow on it.

You see, the one that should be willing to change....is the likes of you. You're the closed minded one, but you cannot see that.

I'm very open minded.  You think otherwise is for one reason and one reason only...because I say the world is a globe and nothing else. 

What's become clear to me is this whole "you're indoctrinated" & "you're brainwashed" isn't to explain REer beliefs/knowledge.  IMHO, the only way FEer's can justify their beliefs in the face of so many others who believe the opposite is to claim the rest of us can't see the truth.

The fact is the reason I haven't seen any flat earth reasoning/theories that have changed my mind is simply because nothing has matched, or in some cases was contrary to, my own personal experiences and observations in my life.  Of course you'll say it's because I've been brainwashed but that's just plain silly.  I still have eyes and ears.  Contrary to the popular view of round earthers, I can actually think for myself and I don't make decisions just because I'm told to. 

Okay.  I know there are going to be FEer's that will say it's not that we're not smart enough.  It's because it's been drummed into our heads all our lives and it's all we know.  AAMOF, I've had many FEer's say this to me and it is the dumbest thing I've heard.  There is not a person the history of our species that thinks that way.  Our brains just plain don't work that way.  We are a species of contrarians and skeptics.  We literally spend most of our lives rebelling even going out of our way to do the opposite.  Those of us with kids experienced this first hand.  It is the very reason there are so many conspiracy theories out there.  It is in our very nature to doubt and as a species we're very, very good at it.  Humans have never blindly accepted anything.  We rebel.  Simple

The claim that REer's are so indoctrinated/brainwashed that they believe everything they're told to the point they are incapable of seeing reality is LITTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You once told me that my 35 years' experience in the operation, maintenance, construction, and design of nuclear power plants doesn't mean that I know nuclear power exists.  You then called me a liar and a dupe for all my personal and professional experience that I related to you that were contrary to your beliefs.  Guess what; it may just be possible that you were merely justifying your belief system by denying my reality exists.  Ponder that for a while.

Mike

Yep. It's a mercury barometer among many other things.

Again, the mercury barometer shows gravity or the like, not your nonsense.
It shows that weight is not dependent upon pressure like your nonsense indicates.
So if you wish to appeal to a barometer, this shows denspressure is nonsense and does not explain why things fall.
As such we can discard it and move onto something else which might actually work.

It doesn't matter what barometer is used. They all rely on denpressure.

No, they don't. There are many ways to balance the air pressure.
Weight (as used in a mercury barometer) is one of them. A spring is another.

They rely on air pressure, not denpressure.

When you sit on a bus or in a car you do not feel the initial added pressure of movement into horizontal atmosphere

What does that have to do with anything that has been discussed so far?

You place a mass on a pivot and that pivot will move if there's any slight change in the compression/expansion of the room it is is, no matter how small.

Yet you have provided no justification for any movement ever.
The closest you get is the larger weight displacing atmosphere around it, meaning it would be more compressed between the 2 masses and thus cause them to separate.

Just like you need to provide a justification for why things would go down in general, you need to provide a justification for why the 2 masses should be drawn to one another.

So once again, it isn't really simple as you have no justification.

Answer the question and prove your gravity to me.

No. This is a thread to discuss your delusional nonsense.
You answer the questions that have been given to you.
WHY DO THINGS FALL DOWN?
You can't even answer that simple question.

I've provided enough for people to do. Your choice whether you do them.

You have provided no actual experiments with expected results from denspressure with an explanation of how that comes from denpressure.
Instead you spout a bunch of garbage and claim an experiment which is fully explained with current physics is magically due to denpressure even though a simple understanding of your baseless assertion indicates the opposite should be experienced.

it's a fact that a vacuum cannot exist. Everything is attached with absolutely no free space.

You ignoring definitions and making up garbage doesn't make it a fact.
Vacuums do exist, no matter how much you want to deny them.

I will if I don't have one.

Do you mean an actual answer that works, or are you also including garbage you will pretend is an answer?

I'm willing to change anything I look into.

Is that why you stated so strongly that you will never change your mind?

This is how I'm at where I'm at. I looked at them all and tried to make sense of them all.

And so far have completely failed and can't even explain something as simple as why do things fall.

You see, the one that should be willing to change....is the likes of you. You're the closed minded one, but you cannot see that.

No, we are open minded.
We are asking questions you have no answer for which shows your model to be complete crap.
We are the ones with mountains of evidence backing us up.
It is extremely close minded of you to think we need to change just because we don't accept your garbage.

I am willing to change, if you can actually provide explanations for why things fall and an experiment which shows your model to be correct rather than an alternative.
But you are yet to do either.

I have the option of the current model which works, makes sense and can actually explain and predict things; vs your model, which makes no sense, contradicts itself, contradicts reality until you have it contradict itself to explain away that contradiction, and has absolutely nothing backing it up.
I would have to be insane to accept your model with how it is now.

Like I said, if you want anyone to take your model seriously you need to be able to explain things and show it is real.
For example, WHY DO THINGS FALL?
You are yet to explain that.

Jackb
You write too much.
He already disputes a video proving vacuum.
Video evidence.
Shown to him.
Real.
Fighting over caven and words and whatnot is not going to lead anywhere.

The real question is.
How does scepit breathe?

Quote from: Stash on December 21, 2018, 02:23:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2018, 12:20:20 AM

Ok fair enough. Where did you observe this experiment and can you tell me what was done and how it was done, with whatever mass used in the experiment...etc

Actually the question is quite simple and you have yet to address it. Is there an experiment that demonstrates den pressure that can't be readily also easily explained by another phenomenon?

a) Yes
b) No

Me thinks the answer is b. That being the case all you have is a notion that you believe replicates what is commonly referred to as gravitation. And without being able to demonstrate any distinguishing capabilities of den pressure all you have is a notion. And that notion has a whole host of reliant phenomena required that has never been observed by humans, e.g., crystals, domes, arc something or other, etc. It's nothing more than middle earth, GoT's fantastical fiction.

It's fine to hold a world view that is contrary to convention, be skeptical of what we are taught, etc. But at the end of the day, there are no distinguishing empirical experiments to support your notion. Nor is there any empirically derived evidence of all the other elements required to support your notion. So believe what you want, but it's not science. It's unsupported by anything other than you just saying so. That just won't do.

a or b?

(A)...
The mercury barometer is one massive proof. It's right there in your face but you choose gravity for no other reason than your text books and word of mass mouth or peers to pressure you into following that narrative.

That's as simple as it gets.

Don't take that as a dig because we were all brainwashed with a lot of it during our lives. I'm just old enough to realise how badly duped we are, so now I question it all and try and reason an alternative.

You'll never ever change my mind on the global system even if we lived another 1000 years. There's no spinning globe and no gravity.
Denpressure inside the cell we are all in as bacteria with a central energy core, fits much better and requires no magical notions. In my opinion of course.

Actually, your answer should be B. The challenge was, does den pressure have an experiment where the results can't be readily explained by some other phenomena? A mercury barometer is not one of them. Without any empirical data pointing to den pressure, it remains just your own personal notion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2018, 06:23:54 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 05:56:02 AM

Vacuum doesnt exist and neither do your chances at wining the power ball lottery.

Exactly, because I do not do the powerball.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Near nothing is almost almost and can be considerred nothing when compared... but that is a red herring because youve defined molecules as stacking unstacking and expanding.

It's not a red herring it's a fact that a vacuum cannot exist. Everything is attached with absolutely no free space. So almost this and considered nothing, etc, is pointless.

Quote from: Themightykabool

But yo claim air doesnt actually move.wahts going on?
Dodge somemore

I've never claimed air doesn't move. You've decided it doesn't for some reason.
Feel free to bring up where I said it seeing as you are pushing this a lot.

Well maybe you got somememory problems.
Possibly answering both questions backtoback will show my issue.

You stated a pump can not void the air out of a vessel.
Instead the air becomes depressurized or deweighted or unstacked.
If a pump cant move air, im a little concerned about how we manage to breathe.
If this is incorrect let us know.

If only you took the time to actually understand the basics of what I said at the start you would be grasping what I'm saying but you fail to grasp it and this is the reason you are coming out with this stuff.

When you want to understand it come back to me. Until then you'll get similar answers to this or you'll be overlooked until you come out with something that you can place as relevant because you actually know it is.

Don't just come out with stuff without knowing why.

The claim that REer's are so indoctrinated/brainwashed that they believe everything they're told to the point they are incapable of seeing reality is LITTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.

We're all indoctrinated in many ways.
It isn't a personal dig in this situation. It's a general dig at us all, including myself.
You tell me I'm closed minded when clearly I must be opening my mind to change from rotating globe to stationary to many other alternates, right to this one I'm currently at and have been for long enough. I've found something that matches many things in life from my point of view and experiments.

You adhere to a globe like a limpet because text books and peer pressure ensure that and you're simply too weak to dare to look further for fear of being embarrassed by those who you seek to be part of.

Look at Jane. She dares to try to understand all theories and is willing to play devil's advocate, yet the global Earth theorists/believers attack her and try to intimidate her out of it.

That's most likely what scares many of the likes of yourself.
It's about strength of character.

You once told me that my 35 years' experience in the operation, maintenance, construction, and design of nuclear power plants doesn't mean that I know nuclear power exists.

I don't believe you do. I also do not know if you've even brushed past a sub or even dipped your toe in the sea. I know absolutely nothing about you other than what you tell me.
You could be an avid book reader who spends all waking time reading or on a computer just looking up stuff that feel relevant for you to use as an argument.
How am I to know?
Same goes for me but the difference with me is, I'm not referencing text books for my theory. I'm on the fly and I'm putting it out there.

I'm also questioning many mainstream theories...so if you come along to tell me nuclear power is real when I'm questioning it then I'm going to grill you. I did that and you refused to answer questions, citing that it's all secret.


However...do me a favour. If you feel you need to argue about nuclear can you do it in the nuclear power thread or make one of your own specific to that and then this one won't get derailed like it's doing right now, by us two.

You then called me a liar and a dupe for all my personal and professional experience that I related to you that were contrary to your beliefs.  Guess what; it may just be possible that you were merely justifying your belief system by denying my reality exists.  Ponder that for a while.

Mike

Yeah I'll ponder it. Open a new thread if you feel you need to argue this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2018, 04:44:53 AM

Yep. It's a mercury barometer among many other things.

Again, the mercury barometer shows gravity or the like, not your nonsense.
It shows that weight is not dependent upon pressure like your nonsense indicates.

No way in all hell does a mercury barometer show gravity. You say it and I'll ask how it does and your answer will be something like" it just does, ok."
Not good enough.
The barometer perfectly shows atmospheric pressure is key to measured weight.

So if you wish to appeal to a barometer, this shows denspressure is nonsense and does not explain why things fall.
As such we can discard it and move onto something else which might actually work.

It does work.
The mercury is the dense mass being pushed/squeezed against and pushed up that tube. It can travel up that tube because the atmosphere inside that tube has been lowered in pressure, meaning the mercury can easily be pushed into that lower pressure without massive resistance, which would be the case if the tube was left with normal pressure atmosphere inside of it before the mercury was added.
This would create great resistance to the push of the external atmosphere and make it impossible to gain a reading of pressure change.

The reality is right there in your face.
Gravity is a made up utter load of nonsense and anyone willing to take the time to understand why, will see that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2018, 04:53:20 AM

It doesn't matter what barometer is used. They all rely on denpressure.

No, they don't. There are many ways to balance the air pressure.
Weight (as used in a mercury barometer) is one of them. A spring is another.

They rely on air pressure, not denpressure.

It's not about balancing air pressure with a barometer. It's all about unbalancing it. That's why barometers work in all configurations.

Actually, your answer should be B. The challenge was, does den pressure have an experiment where the results can't be readily explained by some other phenomena? A mercury barometer is not one of them. Without any empirical data pointing to den pressure, it remains just your own personal notion.

No, my answer is correct with (A).

A mercury barometer perfectly explains why denpressure is reality and gravity is fiction.
It just requires people to understand why it works like this instead of accepting that gravity has to play a part in why they work, even though they cannot see any reasoning as to why this would be the case.
The point is, mass opinion by mainstream indoctrination ensures this to be the go to answer.

Gravity is so nonsensical it's not even funny but I understand why people accept it. They accept it ....BECAUSE.

Quote from: Stash on December 21, 2018, 02:51:33 PM

Actually, your answer should be B. The challenge was, does den pressure have an experiment where the results can't be readily explained by some other phenomena? A mercury barometer is not one of them. Without any empirical data pointing to den pressure, it remains just your own personal notion.

No, my answer is correct with (A).

A mercury barometer perfectly explains why denpressure is reality and gravity is fiction.
It just requires people to understand why it works like this instead of accepting that gravity has to play a part in why they work, even though they cannot see any reasoning as to why this would be the case.
The point is, mass opinion by mainstream indoctrination ensures this to be the go to answer.

Gravity is so nonsensical it's not even funny but I understand why people accept it. They accept it ....BECAUSE.

Actually, it's still not A. It's still B. Perhaps you're still not grasping the question or equally plausible that I'm not stating it correctly.

Forget humanity's indoctrination into lies, etc., for just one moment. I'm not even talking about whether gravity is valid or not.

Is there an experiment that show's den pressure in action that can't be easily confused, mistaken for another phenomena? An experiment where, wow, this has got to be den pressure and nothing else really fits?

Actually, it's still not A. It's still B. Perhaps you're still not grasping the question or equally plausible that I'm not stating it correctly.

I'm certainly grasping the question which is why I answered it perfectly well with the barometer.

Forget humanity's indoctrination into lies, etc., for just one moment. I'm not even talking about whether gravity is valid or not.

But you are talking about it being valid. The issue with you is you're adding it into anything I say just because you believe you can and that external authority backs you up and yet (if you are honest) you have absolutely no clue what gravity is as a force...yet use it to supposedly counteract my barometer answer when it's clear that the barometer (as one real life experiment) shows denpressure. It shows a dense mass being acted upon by atmospheric pressure and the resistance of the dense mass in taking up it's own density of atmospheric pressure will hold it aloft inside an upturned tube that has been evacuated of some pressure to allow it to be used as a measuring tube.

There is absolutely no requirement for a fictional force that we are told is gravity. There is simply no need when the reality is in our faces.
The issue is, it's denied as being denpressure because if denpressure were to be adhered to and looked into fully by honest people, it would show a globe and so called outer space with all it's so called planets, stars and what not, to be utterly bogus and actually open up a massive potential for people to start understanding that we are trapped inside a cell that is self sustaining but not infinitely.
Basically we have an expiry date...but that's another matter.
What counts is what we're getting to the basic of, which is denpressure is real and gravity is certainly fictional. (In my arrogant opinion, of course).

Is there an experiment that show's den pressure in action that can't be easily confused, mistaken for another phenomena? An experiment where, wow, this has got to be den pressure and nothing else really fits?

A mercury barometer is fantastic proof if people understand how it works by not using silly gravity.

Unfortunately denpressure cannot in any way explain why there are differences in acceleration rate towards the ground across the globe that correlate with ground density. Gravity explains this perfectly.

Quote from: Stash on December 22, 2018, 01:28:21 AM

Actually, it's still not A. It's still B. Perhaps you're still not grasping the question or equally plausible that I'm not stating it correctly.

I'm certainly grasping the question which is why I answered it perfectly well with the barometer.

Quote from: Stash

Forget humanity's indoctrination into lies, etc., for just one moment. I'm not even talking about whether gravity is valid or not.

But you are talking about it being valid. The issue with you is you're adding it into anything I say just because you believe you can and that external authority backs you up and yet (if you are honest) you have absolutely no clue what gravity is as a force...yet use it to supposedly counteract my barometer answer when it's clear that the barometer (as one real life experiment) shows denpressure. It shows a dense mass being acted upon by atmospheric pressure and the resistance of the dense mass in taking up it's own density of atmospheric pressure will hold it aloft inside an upturned tube that has been evacuated of some pressure to allow it to be used as a measuring tube.

There is absolutely no requirement for a fictional force that we are told is gravity. There is simply no need when the reality is in our faces.
The issue is, it's denied as being denpressure because if denpressure were to be adhered to and looked into fully by honest people, it would show a globe and so called outer space with all it's so called planets, stars and what not, to be utterly bogus and actually open up a massive potential for people to start understanding that we are trapped inside a cell that is self sustaining but not infinitely.
Basically we have an expiry date...but that's another matter.
What counts is what we're getting to the basic of, which is denpressure is real and gravity is certainly fictional. (In my arrogant opinion, of course).

Quote from: Stash

Is there an experiment that show's den pressure in action that can't be easily confused, mistaken for another phenomena? An experiment where, wow, this has got to be den pressure and nothing else really fits?

A mercury barometer is fantastic proof if people understand how it works by not using silly gravity.

' the resistance of the dense mass in taking up it's own density of atmospheric pressure'

Please explain how something takes up 'density', mass per unit volume.  How do we measure the density of an object?

If its so basic and so simple theb wahts the answer?
You stated how a pump works.
It repeated it back.
Then when taken to a different application now its suddenly different?
Psssh
Come on scepti.
What concept is wrong?
Or you can dodgedodgedodge.

Quote from: Stash

Forget humanity's indoctrination into lies, etc., for just one moment. I'm not even talking about whether gravity is valid or not.

But you are talking about it being valid.

Nope, I'm not. I could give less than a shit whether gravity or den pressure is valid.

The issue with you is you're adding it into anything I say just because you believe you can and that external authority backs you up and yet (if you are honest) you have absolutely no clue what gravity is as a force...yet use it to supposedly counteract my barometer answer when it's clear that the barometer (as one real life experiment) shows denpressure. It shows a dense mass being acted upon by atmospheric pressure and the resistance of the dense mass in taking up it's own density of atmospheric pressure will hold it aloft inside an upturned tube that has been evacuated of some pressure to allow it to be used as a measuring tube.

As stated before, a barometer does not distinctively show den pressure. A barometer's activity can be explained by other phenomena as well, aside and even excluding den pressure. So it does not meet the challenge of, Is there an experiment that show's den pressure in action that can't be easily confused, mistaken for another phenomena?

A mercury barometer is fantastic proof if people understand how it works by not using silly gravity.

That's not how science works. You have to show that other silly notions CAN be discarded, not by simply replicating with a notion as to what those other other silly notions already explain. You're solution as to why things fall to the ground has to be distinctly demonstrated otherwise it's really no better an explanation than "just cuz." Which, at this point, I'm more than willing to accept.

And at the end of the day, all is moot. B/c den pressure doesn't exhibit the distinct empirical repeatability of outcomes that other mainstream theories afford. And if the den pressure argument was actually that "You're all doing it wrong" and for some reason den pressure could result in a better, more profitable, livable way of doing things, then you shouldn't be here. It just doesn't check the necessary boxes. I'm not saying gravity does, but the preponderance of boxes it does check is greater than den pressure.

All that said, I think what you've come up with and defended is quite laudable. Super interesting, makes one think and question. Thanks.

You tell me I'm closed minded when clearly I must be opening my mind to change from rotating globe to stationary to many other alternates

Nope. It does not require one to be open minded to discard the majority opinion.

You adhere to [snip]

No, we adhere to a model which is capable of explaining reality and which makes sense. This makes it vastly superior to your nonsense where you can't even explain why things fall.

Look at Jane.

Why?
She seems to just be here to feel good about herself by attacking REers.

No way in all hell does a mercury barometer show gravity.

Yes it does. We have been over this before.
The barometer shows that pressure does not determine weight.
If pressure was based upon displacing the atmosphere and thus intrinsically linked to pressure, the mercury barometer would always read the same.

You say it and I'll ask how it does and your answer will be something like" it just does, ok."

No, you asked how and I explained how the weight of the mercury due to gravity builds up a pressure gradient inside the tube which results in the same height, regardless of the size or shape or angle of the tube. All that matters is the density of the fluid, the head (height difference between top and bottom) and the gravitational acceleration.

I have repeatedly asked you how it works with denpressure and you have repeatedly failed, with simple variations showing your explanation doesn't work.

So no, the mercury barometer clearly shows your model is garbage.

It does work.

Then why are you completely unable to explain it?

The mercury is the dense mass being pushed/squeezed against and pushed up that tube.

Once again you have no basis for directionality. As such it shouldn't matter what the orientation of the tube is. In fact you should be able to hold it upside down and get the same reading, but you don't. Instead it requires that it is vertical. This makes no sense in your model.

The reality is right there in your face.

Yes, it is. (well not right here, the mercury barometer is elsewhere).
And guess what it shows? Your model is garbage.

It's not about balancing air pressure with a barometer. It's all about unbalancing it. That's why barometers work in all configurations.

No. It is entirely about balancing it.
The types of barometers discussed (unlike some other pressure gauges) rely upon some mechanism (such as gravity or a spring) to produce a pressure to balance it. When it is balanced it can then be read to determine the atmospheric pressure. If it was about unbalancing it, then you just have an indication of what way it is and no useful pressure reading.
Not all barometers work in all configurations. Ones based upon springs do work in any configuration as the balance comes from the spring.
Ones based upon weight (e.g. mercury barometers) need the system to be in a particular orientation to function as calibrated, with other orientations requiring different measurements and cannot work in some orientations.

It just requires people to understand why it works

You mean it requires people to just accept your baseless nonsense rather than actually think about what your model predicts and the results obtained.

A mercury barometer is rock solid proof that weight doesn't come from displacing the atmosphere.


Again, if it did, the mercury should be pushed all the way into the tube, regardless of orientation, or at best, be the same distance in the side the tube (if you wish to appeal to a small amount of air trapped in the end) regardless of orientation.
But that still has to deal with your insane idea of everything being permeable to air with some air inside it to make up the difference in densities and thus how anything can actually be sealed to have the pressure differential required for it to function in the first place.

Even if you were somehow magically correct with your newly manipulated model managing to "predict" the function of a mercury barometer, it still doesn't show your model is correct and gravity is wrong. That is because gravity predicts the functioning of the barometer.

Quote from: MicroBeta on December 21, 2018, 08:02:48 AM

The claim that REer's are so indoctrinated/brainwashed that they believe everything they're told to the point they are incapable of seeing reality is LITTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.

We're all indoctrinated in many ways.
It isn't a personal dig in this situation. It's a general dig at us all, including myself.
You tell me I'm closed minded when clearly I must be opening my mind to change from rotating globe to stationary to many other alternates, right to this one I'm currently at and have been for long enough. I've found something that matches many things in life from my point of view and experiments.

You adhere to a globe like a limpet because text books and peer pressure ensure that and you're simply too weak to dare to look further for fear of being embarrassed by those who you seek to be part of.

Look at Jane. She dares to try to understand all theories and is willing to play devil's advocate, yet the global Earth theorists/believers attack her and try to intimidate her out of it.

That's most likely what scares many of the likes of yourself.
It's about strength of character.

Quote from: MicroBeta

You once told me that my 35 years' experience in the operation, maintenance, construction, and design of nuclear power plants doesn't mean that I know nuclear power exists.

I don't believe you do. I also do not know if you've even brushed past a sub or even dipped your toe in the sea. I know absolutely nothing about you other than what you tell me.
You could be an avid book reader who spends all waking time reading or on a computer just looking up stuff that feel relevant for you to use as an argument.
How am I to know?
Same goes for me but the difference with me is, I'm not referencing text books for my theory. I'm on the fly and I'm putting it out there.

I'm also questioning many mainstream theories...so if you come along to tell me nuclear power is real when I'm questioning it then I'm going to grill you. I did that and you refused to answer questions, citing that it's all secret.


However...do me a favour. If you feel you need to argue about nuclear can you do it in the nuclear power thread or make one of your own specific to that and then this one won't get derailed like it's doing right now, by us two.

Quote from: MicroBeta

You then called me a liar and a dupe for all my personal and professional experience that I related to you that were contrary to your beliefs.  Guess what; it may just be possible that you were merely justifying your belief system by denying my reality exists.  Ponder that for a while.

Mike

Yeah I'll ponder it. Open a new thread if you feel you need to argue this.

No need to continue.  I made my point and got the response I expected.

However, you still haven’t answered the question.  How does denpressure explain the operation of the Cavendish experiment? 

We’ve already established that whirlpools can’t affect the balance within an enclosure.  And, we’ve also shown that by reversing the external masses the balance will move in the opposite direction which also eliminates whirlpools.

Which is the denpressure explanation to dis-spell the proof of gravity?

Mike

Unfortunately denpressure cannot in any way explain why there are differences in acceleration rate towards the ground across the globe that correlate with ground density. Gravity explains this perfectly.

How about you tell me about this acceleration towards the ground across your supposed globe that correlate with ground density.

Nice and basic from your side if you don't mind.

How do we measure the density of an object?

Man made measuring scales that give off a reading based on how much atmosphere a dense object placed upon those scales, displaces.

If its so basic and so simple theb wahts the answer?
You stated how a pump works.
It repeated it back.
Then when taken to a different application now its suddenly different?
Psssh
Come on scepti.
What concept is wrong?
Or you can dodgedodgedodge.

There's nothing suddenly different. You're suddenly getting weaker by using this method or attempting to argue. It's not working.
Put some effort in or don't waste your own time...and mine.

Quote from: inquisitive on December 22, 2018, 02:48:24 AM

How do we measure the density of an object?

Man made measuring scales that give off a reading based on how much atmosphere a dense object placed upon those scales, displaces.

How much atmosphere in weight or volume? Please explain how scales can measure a quantity of atmosphere.

As stated before, a barometer does not distinctively show den pressure. A barometer's activity can be explained by other phenomena as well, aside and even excluding den pressure.
 So it does not meet the challenge of, Is there an experiment that show's den pressure in action that can't be easily confused, mistaken for another phenomena?

Can you tell me what other phenomena?

And at the end of the day, all is moot. B/c den pressure doesn't exhibit the distinct empirical repeatability of outcomes that other mainstream theories afford.

I believe it does but it all depends on what repeatable outcomes you're on about that you say mainstream theories afford.

 And if the den pressure argument was actually that "You're all doing it wrong" and for some reason den pressure could result in a better, more profitable, livable way of doing things, then you shouldn't be here. It just doesn't check the necessary boxes. I'm not saying gravity does, but the preponderance of boxes it does check is greater than den pressure.

It's not a case of people doing it wrong. It's a case of a reasoning being made alternate to the actual truth, In my opinion.
What boxes does gravity check that you can absolutely verify for yourself, without reliance on anyone or any references to theoretical experiments that show zero proof?

 

All that said, I think what you've come up with and defended is quite laudable. Super interesting, makes one think and question. Thanks.

The whole purpose is to make people think. It's not to make people believe, just like that.
The issue is simple. If people start to question what they simply believed was truth's and find my side of the coin to be a challenge to those supposed truth's.
It only takes one simple alternate snippet to cast doubt on a whole plethora of so called mainstream scientific theories passed off as truth's.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 22, 2018, 03:00:12 AM

If its so basic and so simple theb wahts the answer?
You stated how a pump works.
It repeated it back.
Then when taken to a different application now its suddenly different?
Psssh
Come on scepti.
What concept is wrong?
Or you can dodgedodgedodge.

There's nothing suddenly different. You're suddenly getting weaker by using this method or attempting to argue. It's not working.
Put some effort in or don't waste your own time...and mine.

You seem to have lots of time arguing nothing with stash and jackb.

We're 91pages in.
From what ive read my interpretation is sound.
Or its so simple you could point out the blatantly obious and basic misconception.
If not
Keep dodging some more.
Ill keep calling you out on it.

Apparently we're all not breathing.
Scuba gear is fakenews just like nasa.

Come on scepti.
How do we breathe?