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

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.

Objects will accelerate at a faster rate downwards if the ground is made of a denser than average material such as basalt.

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

No that is weight which can then equate to mass.
That is not how density is measured.
To measure density using that method you then need to measure the volume of the substance, which can be difficult to do.
A better way (at least for fluids) is an oscillating u-tube. This measures the oscillation of a section of substance in a u-tube of known volume.
This can directly give the density of air, and would also measure the mass of any air trapped inside.

That is further evidence of your model being garbage.

I believe it does

I likewise believe your denspressure nonsense should produce results distinct from other possibilities, like gravity. But that shows your model to be wrong so you dismiss the results your model should predict and instead claim it gives the exact same results as gravity.

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.

But no one has, except you allegedly.
You have failed to present any actual challenge to gravity and simple questions present a massive challenge to your model.

You can't even answer a simple question like why do things fall down.

Nor can you explain the experiment which you claim can prove denpressure.
You have no justification for why the height of the mercury column varies with pressure. You have no justification for why the head height is what stays fixed rather than the length of the mercury along the tube. You have no justification for why the size and shape doesn't matter, and that you can have one with a large bulb at the end of a thin column or a small bulb with a large column and still get the same height. The actual result of barometer experiments and experiments like them show your model to be pure nonsense.

He redefined density.
Smart move on his part.

Hu's on first?

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.

Please give a link to scales calibrated in mass/volume.

How do we breathe?

In his model air molecules do still move in and out, he just claims that instead of free space between them they just magically fill all space.

That does raise the question of how such large molecules manage to fit through a pump or how some pumps (like turbomolecular pumps) work.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 22, 2018, 06:49:09 AM

How do we breathe?

In his model air molecules do still move in and out, he just claims that instead of free space between them they just magically fill all space.

That does raise the question of how such large molecules manage to fit through a pump or how some pumps (like turbomolecular pumps) work.

Aaah but lets examine.

he claims that the vacuum video was impossible (even though the feather never flutters) because a pump behaves diferently than conventional understanding.
A pump doesnt move air.
It pushes back on atmoshperic forces.

But (disputetedly) we see vacuums all the time in the industrial world and im able to fill a balloon with my lungs and scuba gear works.

So.
What is going on then?
There is a disjoint between how a pump is not able to accomplish what other things can?

The whole point was to take it back full circle to
1.  validity of a vacuum chamber and
2.  ability of objects weighing differently under pressure
3.  Disproving the basis of denp.

Not even touching the "reality" of a helium ice dome and the reflective sun.

he claims that the vacuum video was impossible

He claims it isn't actually a vacuum.
Most of his arguments are just pathetic semantics.
He accepts it is low pressure, but not 0 pressure, and thus claims it doesn't prove things fall in a vacuum (as he ignores the actual definition) and ignores that his model indicates it should fall so slowly it isn't funny.

A pump doesnt move air.
It pushes back on atmoshperic forces.

Yes, for a simple piston pump, it pushes the atmosphere out of the pump head, with the valve holding back the atmosphere, and then has the chamber expand. This then allows the air inside the vacuum chamber to push itself into the pump.

From what I can tell from what he has said, the main difference between reality and his model are:
1 - there is no gravity. Instead the air molecules magically stack themselves to produce the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
2 - The air molecules magically expand to fill all space rather than being small particles with large regions of free space between.
3 - These molecules then magically push things down, except when they push them up to magically produce the exact same as you would expect for gravity.
4 - There is absolutely no vacuum as a vacuum must be 0 pressure, not just really low.

2.  ability of objects weighing differently under pressure

I think before we even get to there we need to know why objects weigh under denpressure in the first place.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 05:55:31 AM

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.

Objects will accelerate at a faster rate downwards if the ground is made of a denser than average material such as basalt.

How was this tested and what was the instrument used, How does this instrument actually work.
Just the basics will be absolutely fine.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 05:55:31 AM

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

No that is weight which can then equate to mass.
That is not how density is measured.
To measure density using that method you then need to measure the volume of the substance, which can be difficult to do.

To measure density in denpressure you simply measure displacement of atmosphere by any object placed within it.
To do this you simply have to use some kind of resistance foundation but also have the ability to be compressed in order to show a man made reading.
It's simply called a set of scales in any variation anyone would like. Whether it's industrial sized or delicate.
You can configure gauges to also produce measurement of atmospheric pressure.

No fictional gravity required in order to show this.

A better way (at least for fluids) is an oscillating u-tube. This measures the oscillation of a section of substance in a u-tube of known volume.
This can directly give the density of air, and would also measure the mass of any air trapped inside.

That is further evidence of your model being garbage.

It's simply evidence that atmospheric gases have mass.
I've explained that every molecule has mass.
It's just a case of how we measure it.
None of it has any use for fictional gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 06:12:33 AM

I believe it does

I likewise believe your denspressure nonsense should produce results distinct from other possibilities, like gravity.

It dies.
The problem arises when a fictional word is used to describe something that is clearly the work of something else. Like denpressure.

But that shows your model to be wrong so you dismiss the results your model should predict and instead claim it gives the exact same results as gravity.

If I honestly believed my model was wrong and was shown to be wrong I'd cease arguing it.
As it stands, it's as strong if not stronger in argument as of now and likely to get stronger the more it goes on and the better I can explain the basics so people can understand them without coming back with a gravity counterargument based on absolutely nothing other than "this is gravity."

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 06:12:33 AM

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.

But no one has, except you allegedly.
You have failed to present any actual challenge to gravity and simple questions present a massive challenge to your model.

You can't even answer a simple question like why do things fall down.

I've answered the question many times but I'm not in charge of those who simply won't see it or accept the answer.
By all means keep telling me I haven't....but I have.

Nor can you explain the experiment which you claim can prove denpressure.

There's a few and the basics is where it has to start.
You actually do grasp snippets of it but are so resistant to it you end up scuppering your own advancement in it to get to the nitty gritty of stuff.
Your modus operandi is to simply RESIST and attempt to ridicule my theory. I understand that. I accept that.
However, it doesn't gain you any more headway by doing so. It probably edges you backward a bit in your quest to come forward.

You have no justification for why the height of the mercury column varies with pressure.

Yes I do but you saying I don't is simply you just saying it for effect.

Call me out on any one thing at a time and we will deal with it one thing at a time, instead of all this gunk.

You have no justification for why the head height is what stays fixed rather than the length of the mercury along the tube.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with this. Explain what you mean and we'll also deal with this.
I'm more than willing to deal with anything thrown at me as long as it's reasonable and can make a basic point that we can all grasp.

You have no justification for why the size and shape doesn't matter, and that you can have one with a large bulb at the end of a thin column or a small bulb with a large column and still get the same height. The actual result of barometer experiments and experiments like them show your model to be pure nonsense.

I have plenty of justification of why size and shape doesn't matter. It's all about pressures. It's all about density against pressure. It's all denpressure and can be explained.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 22, 2018, 06:49:09 AM

How do we breathe?

In his model air molecules do still move in and out, he just claims that instead of free space between them they just magically fill all space.

They don't magically fill that space. They fill it by natural decompression.
You need to also understand the gobstopper effect to get a real grip of how space is never a reality and no free space can exist.
All matter is crushing or being crushed against.
It's a mutual resistance against each other whatever is it and however far down it is, all the way to the top of the dome.
The general resistance is a vibration of matter caused by friction of compression and natural resistance to that by expansion back to counteract that.
It's all pressures. A push on push at all times.

To fully understand this we have to actually get the basics out of the way.
Unfortunately we get the very same issue with people going into reject mode and using gravity because they are scared to appear to look like they want to understand it, for fear of being attacked en masse by the globalists.

That does raise the question of how such large molecules manage to fit through a pump or how some pumps (like turbomolecular pumps) work.

Because such large molecules are not such large molecules, except in your mind because I mention sponge balls as analogies to give people an insight.
It's sort of bemusing to think some people take analogies in a literal sense and refuse to move ahead from that point.

Simple
Basic
....

Funny how youre willing to go through point to point but my simple question remians unanswred...

Ok lets try again.
Im not talkin about gravity and sticking to the denp cell.

Sponge anaolgy.
If molecukes were a sponge then the matter of a molcule is the physical sponge.
Air pockets in a sponge = what?
Empty space?
Other air?

Either way, can an air molecule be allowed to compress in a pressure vessel?
Yes.
Can we insert more molecules into a pressure vessel?
Yes?
How is this doene, via pump?
If insertion is possible, so is removal?
Yes/ no?

Simple
Basic
....

Funny how youre willing to go through point to point but my simple question remians unanswred...

Ok lets try again.
Im not talkin about gravity and sticking to the denp cell.

Sponge anaolgy.
If molecukes were a sponge then the matter of a molcule is the physical sponge.
Air pockets in a sponge = what?
Empty space?
Other air?

Think about what makes a structure of anything.
Let's start with the absolute basic in order to understand.

Matter is like a gobstopper. Call it layered molecules if you want.
Think of it like making a ball out of elastic and building it up but doing it as if you were placing one molecule inside another and then another inside of that and then another inside of that.
Soon enough if you could cut them open you would see a layered molecule/atom/matter or whatever anyone wants to call it at this stage.
The more matter there is in a structure the more molecules that are packed into one molecular ball (as an instance of analogy)
All those similar balls would make up a structure by compression into each other as some of the balls deform as they are compressed or allowed to expand, depending on energy applied from other means. It gets complicated so this has to be done very carefully or it will quickly get denpressure massively derailed from the basics.

I do not want or need you to argue these points, just understand that there's a lot more to how my theory works but the real basics have to be understood for it to proceed further with people.
It doesn't help when you have a variation of people all attempting to alter the path of it.

Either way, can an air molecule be allowed to compress in a pressure vessel?
Yes.
Can we insert more molecules into a pressure vessel?
Yes?
How is this doene, via pump?
If insertion is possible, so is removal?
Yes/ no?

Think of a glass jar. You know and I know that it's a formidable barrier against external atmospheric pressure and we also know it's more formidable when the pressure inside of it is equalised with the external pressure via an open top.
Basically the actually wall structure of the jar is resisting the crush from inside and outside.

Fair enough on this, right?
Now let's look at how on Earth we could force out that equalised atmosphere from that jar.

Let's add a stopper and a valve to the jar.
The valve is a one way valve that can only allow pressure to leave the jar and none can return.

Ok so far?

Ok we now use a very simple bicycle hand pump with the handle fully depressed so the plunger is at the bottom as it's attached to the valve on the jar.

Ok, now here's the key so pay attention to this.
At this point many people would assume air would be sucked out as if you simply pull air out of the jar.
The reality is in knowing what's really happening.

The plunger on that pump requires you to use your own force to push that plunger up and by doing this you are pushing back on the external atmosphere that is directly behind that plunger.

However, you also know that below the plunger you are creating a so called void which some people would call a vacuum, except that it is far from that.
All you're doing is creating a compression against the external atmosphere with the back of the plunger in order to allow the compressed molecules inside the jar to actually decompress a little throughout the jar but especially, initially slightly more immediate decompression at the point of lowered pressure.

Until that plunger stops being pushed up, the natural decompression of molecules inside the jar will carry on into the pump tube to compress inside of that against external atmosphere and actually become part of a slightly more compressed external atmosphere compared to the internal atmospheric pressure left inside the jar.

This is just the very basic of basic and there's a lot more to grasping it so you need to work from here and ask your question before we can edge along. Seriously.

If you're only interested in getting a so called back pat for attempts to confuse the issue then you'll be overlooked like I've done.
Here's your chance to show you can grasp stuff.

Good stuff.
So basically what i said before.

So all that hoobajoob does air actually move in and out?
Yes No?
Then we can move into the breathing train of though.

To measure density in denpressure

We want in reality.

you simply measure displacement of atmosphere by any object placed within it.

But that is just the amount of displaced atmosphere, not the density.

It's simply evidence that atmospheric gases have mass.

Yes, the atmosphere had mass, but according to you it is only the displaced mass of the atmosphere which causes weight.
This means a weight based measurement of density will not record the gas trapped inside the substance, while an oscillating u-tube method will.
Yet no such discrepancy is ever observed.

None of it has any use for fictional gravity.

No, just real gravity.
Something you are yet to present any actual challenge for or any viable alternative.

The problem arises when a fictional word is used to describe something that is clearly the work of something else. Like denpressure.

Yes, the problem arises when you use a fictional word like denpressure to describe something that is clearly the work of gravity.
Thank's for admitting you are the problem.

If I honestly believed my model was wrong

I get that you are rejecting reality and not caring about the truth. What point are you making?

As it stands, it's as strong if not stronger in argument as of now and likely to get stronger the more it goes on

As strong as what?
You are yet to be able to do anything with it.

I can explain the basics

No you can't.
You can't explain why the molecules stack.
You can't explain why displacing the air results in a downwards force.
You cannot explain any of the basics.
We have repeatedly asked you to and you have just repeated the same pathetic tactics.
You either run away to a deflection moaning about how you hate gravity and don't understand it at all, or you just repeat the same baseless assertions.

You actually do grasp snippets of it but are so resistant to it you end up scuppering your own advancement in it to get to the nitty gritty of stuff.

Yes, unlike you I actually care about the truth and thus would want any model trying to describe reality to be able to describe reality.
As such, I will ask "difficult" questions to get into the nitty gritty, like WHY DO THINGS FALL?
You are yet to provide an answer other than the atmosphere magically pushing them down.

Your modus operandi is to simply RESIST and attempt to ridicule my theory.

No, it is to question and find the truth.
I don't ridicule your nonsense. (It isn't a theory).
Instead I ask simple questions that you can't answer, or explain how your model predicts something 100% inconsistent with reality.

However, it doesn't gain you any more headway by doing so. It probably edges you backward a bit in your quest to come forward.

No, it doesn't gain more headway as it just shows your model to be nonsense.
Accepting your model would be a massive step backwards.

Yes I do

THEN PROVIDE IT!

Call me out on any one thing at a time and we will deal with it one thing at a time, instead of all this gunk.

We have tried that several times, and you have repeatedly failed.

You can't even explain why things fall in your model.

Explain what you mean and we'll also deal with this.

Great job contradicting yourself there.
First you say do one thing at a time, now you want more?

It is quite simple. The pressure gradient is dependent upon the difference in height between the fluid in the tube and the fluid in the dish.
Alternatively, it is this height which is dependent upon the pressure.
You have no justification for this.
The closest you have to a justification is some low pressure inside the tube allowing the mercury to be pushed into it. But then it shouldn't matter what the orientation of the tube, it should be pushed in the same.

I'm more than willing to deal with anything thrown at me as long as it's reasonable and can make a basic point that we can all grasp.

So you need to be able to grasp it?
Is that how you will dismiss things you don't like now?

I have plenty of justification of why size and shape doesn't matter. It's all about pressures. It's all about density against pressure. It's all denpressure and can be explained.

No, you have no justification at all.
If it was based upon pressure it would then be based upon volume, not head height.
Nothing in your nonsense can be explained.

They don't magically fill that space. They fill it by natural decompression.

Except there is no magic natural decompression, so it is by magic.
Why should they expand?

Because such large molecules are not such large molecules

So they don't magically expand and instead stay as tiny molecules?

Matter is like a gobstopper. Call it layered molecules if you want.

No, it is nothing like a gobstopper. And even gobstoppers don't magically expand.

Now, again, if you want to try from the basics, explain why things fall.
Don't just assert that displacing the atmosphere causes them to be pushed down. That makes no sense at all.
Explain why there is a force in a particular direction.

Only 8 more pages to go.  Come on boys, lets hit 100 for Christmas!

Scepti - 'To measure density in denpressure you simply measure displacement of atmosphere by any object placed within it.'   Do you mean volume?

Does the weight of an object depend on its surface area, larger area, more pressure?

If a measurement of the weight of an object involves pressure then the value would vary depending on the atmospheric pressure at the particular time.

No, it is nothing like a gobstopper. And even gobstoppers don't magically expand.

This is why it's pointless going through anything with you. I don't know if it's deliberate on your part of whether you have some form of something that does not allow you to understand an analogy.

Scepti - 'To measure density in denpressure you simply measure displacement of atmosphere by any object placed within it.'   Do you mean volume?

No, i mean the structure of any object. The structure, not the porosity of it and within it.

Does the weight of an object depend on its surface area, larger area, more pressure?

The weight of anything depends on the structure of it displacing the atmosphere it is placed in which enables a man made scale reading to be taken of that push on push resistance.

If a measurement of the weight of an object involves pressure then the value would vary depending on the atmospheric pressure at the particular time.

And it does which can easily be measured by a barometer, like I said earlier.

Good stuff.
So basically what i said before.

So all that hoobajoob does air actually move in and out?
Yes No?
Then we can move into the breathing train of though.

Good stuff eh?
You can't grasp what's been said to you, can you?
I'll happily give you one more chance and I will happily explain stuff. I just feel that it's wasted on you just as much as it is on Jackblack to be fair.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 23, 2018, 02:31:07 AM

No, it is nothing like a gobstopper. And even gobstoppers don't magically expand.

This is why it's pointless going through anything with you. I don't know if it's deliberate on your part of whether you have some form of something that does not allow you to understand an analogy.

Ignore him and anyone who talks cavendish then

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2018, 04:49:25 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 23, 2018, 02:31:07 AM

No, it is nothing like a gobstopper. And even gobstoppers don't magically expand.

This is why it's pointless going through anything with you. I don't know if it's deliberate on your part of whether you have some form of something that does not allow you to understand an analogy.

Ignore him and anyone who talks cavendish then

Either take the time to understand or be overlooked. Your choice.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 23, 2018, 01:50:38 AM

Good stuff.
So basically what i said before.

So all that hoobajoob does air actually move in and out?
Yes No?
Then we can move into the breathing train of though.

Good stuff eh?
You can't grasp what's been said to you, can you?
I'll happily give you one more chance and I will happily explain stuff. I just feel that it's wasted on you just as much as it is on Jackblack to be fair.

Simply simple.
Just answer it basically.
Air can be forced in or not?
You state gobstoppers and stacking and expanding sponges.
Are the molucules able to bemoved in or out via pump?

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 23, 2018, 05:07:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2018, 04:49:25 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 23, 2018, 02:31:07 AM

No, it is nothing like a gobstopper. And even gobstoppers don't magically expand.

This is why it's pointless going through anything with you. I don't know if it's deliberate on your part of whether you have some form of something that does not allow you to understand an analogy.

Ignore him and anyone who talks cavendish then

Either take the time to understand or be overlooked. Your choice.

You scpeit misunderstand

Im telijg you scpeti to igore jackb and anyone leading to cavendish because all it turns into is a fught about gravity.
Im not takking gravity.
Youre not talking gravity.
Lets talk about moving molecules in and out of oressur evessels.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2018, 04:49:25 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 23, 2018, 02:31:07 AM

No, it is nothing like a gobstopper. And even gobstoppers don't magically expand.

This is why it's pointless going through anything with you. I don't know if it's deliberate on your part of whether you have some form of something that does not allow you to understand an analogy.

Ignore him and anyone who talks cavendish then

If I discuss Cavendish it's got nothing to do with you.  Why do you get to decide what is relevant to the discussion of denpressure?

BTW, septimatic, you are still avoiding denpressure's role in the behavior of the torsional balance.

Mike

Quote from: Mainframes on December 22, 2018, 08:22:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 05:55:31 AM

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.

Objects will accelerate at a faster rate downwards if the ground is made of a denser than average material such as basalt.

How was this tested and what was the instrument used, How does this instrument actually work.
Just the basics will be absolutely fine.

They call it a....... stopwatch.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 11:11:37 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on December 22, 2018, 08:22:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 05:55:31 AM

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.

Objects will accelerate at a faster rate downwards if the ground is made of a denser than average material such as basalt.

How was this tested and what was the instrument used, How does this instrument actually work.
Just the basics will be absolutely fine.

They call it a....... stopwatch.

You're indoctrinated to think time pieces work how they want you to think they work. In your own words so that a child could understand, explain to me how this so-called stopwatch works?

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 23, 2018, 05:07:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2018, 04:49:25 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 23, 2018, 02:31:07 AM

No, it is nothing like a gobstopper. And even gobstoppers don't magically expand.

This is why it's pointless going through anything with you. I don't know if it's deliberate on your part of whether you have some form of something that does not allow you to understand an analogy.

Ignore him and anyone who talks cavendish then

If I discuss Cavendish it's got nothing to do with you.  Why do you get to decide what is relevant to the discussion of denpressure?

BTW, septimatic, you are still avoiding denpressure's role in the behavior of the torsional balance.

Mike

I dont.
But all discussions on gravity lead to a go-no wehre page after page.
If you havent noticed we're approaching triple digits here.

He already disputs gravity.
He disputes cavendish
He disputs vacuum.chambers.
You keep infering a cause to a result that he has already dismissed will get you no where.

My goal here is to see if the same base model of molecules changes between pressure vessels.
He keeps dodging to answer the cavendish with the same stupid answrers over and over.
Or the same troll question back.
It leads no where.
Present a line of qusstioning that will lead somehwhere!

I want my answer scepti.
How do you breathe?

You're indoctrinated to think time pieces work how they want you to think they work. In your own words so that a child could understand, explain to me how this so-called stopwatch works?

You're indoctrinated to think explaining works how they want you to think it works.  In your own words so that Tom Bishop could understand, explain to me how this so-called explaining works?

Quote from: Mainframes on December 23, 2018, 08:08:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 11:11:37 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on December 22, 2018, 08:22:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2018, 05:55:31 AM

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.

Objects will accelerate at a faster rate downwards if the ground is made of a denser than average material such as basalt.

How was this tested and what was the instrument used, How does this instrument actually work.
Just the basics will be absolutely fine.

They call it a....... stopwatch.

You're indoctrinated to think time pieces work how they want you to think they work. In your own words so that a child could understand, explain to me how this so-called stopwatch works?

You push the button it runs. You push the button again and it stops.

Mike

This is why it's pointless going through anything with you.

Because I don't just accept pure nonsense without any justification?
Because all you can do to defend your nonsense is insult people and dismiss them or make pathetic baseless assertions?
Because you repeatedly use completely useless analogies which don't help make your point at all, and then blame others for not accepting your useless analogies?

This isn't a problem on my part. It is entirely upon you and your inability to defend your nonsense.

The weight of anything depends on the structure of it

Do you mean like a crystal structure?

And it does which can easily be measured by a barometer, like I said earlier.

Nope.
A barometer relies upon the weight being constant with pressure.
You can easily measure it with a set of scales and note that it remains basically the same.
You can easily measure it by allowing a dense mass (like a steel ball, or even better osmium) to accelerate.

The variation in weight with pressure is insignificant and in the wrong direction for your model.

I just feel that it's wasted

If you don't want it to be wasted then start addressing what has been said and justifying your claims rather than repeating the same baseless assertions.

The reason it is "wasted" on me, is because you aren't able to explain anything.

You can't explain why things fall. Instead you just have the same baseless assertion of displacing the atmosphere magically makes it fall.

You can't explain the functioning of a mercury barometer, why the pressure relates to the head height, rather than any other parameter.
If you don't want your words to be wasted on me, provide an explanation or admit you have none.

So again, WHY DO THINGS FALL?