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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 264608 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2850 on: December 30, 2018, 04:42:32 AM »


What is being demonstrated is that an object will take a different amount of time to hit the ground dependant upon the density of the ground below it.

The results will show that denser ground will cause an object to fall faster downwards. This directly supports gravity. How does denspressure explain this result?
Porosity.

Explain.
If I was to drop a sheet of glass onto a solid table by letting it fall at an angle in order to fall flat, it would compress the air under it creating a cushion because the foundation is not very porous as opposed to having a table that has a sieve/perforated foundation to that same glass which would allow that glass to be far less cushioned.


Is that a good enough explanation or would you like something more spongy?

Solid rock has no porosity.
Of course it does.
The trouble is you're looking at it by your own naked eyesight to see what you believe is a solid rock.
Everything has porosity but some things deep down will be so dense and molten as to be arguably near to entirely devoid of any recognisable porosity, which is nothing more than a wild guess on my part.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2851 on: December 30, 2018, 05:13:40 AM »


What is being demonstrated is that an object will take a different amount of time to hit the ground dependant upon the density of the ground below it.

The results will show that denser ground will cause an object to fall faster downwards. This directly supports gravity. How does denspressure explain this result?
Porosity.

Explain.
If I was to drop a sheet of glass onto a solid table by letting it fall at an angle in order to fall flat, it would compress the air under it creating a cushion because the foundation is not very porous as opposed to having a table that has a sieve/perforated foundation to that same glass which would allow that glass to be far less cushioned.


Is that a good enough explanation or would you like something more spongy?

Solid rock has no porosity.
Of course it does.
The trouble is you're looking at it by your own naked eyesight to see what you believe is a solid rock.
Everything has porosity but some things deep down will be so dense and molten as to be arguably near to entirely devoid of any recognisable porosity, which is nothing more than a wild guess on my part.
How do we measure porosity and what units is it?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2852 on: December 30, 2018, 05:23:14 AM »


Sounds like a coherent thought.
Can you draw a diagram wih arrows?
Sorry but i cant trust myself to not misinterpret your words.
I understand you struggle so I try to think of ways to help you understand. I have some weird belief that you're trying to understand in between fishing for globalist back slaps.

Let's pretend those hemispheres are under water in a big pool and the water is our atmosphere, meaning it's compressible like it, just so you can understand what I'm getting at..
This should give you a better understanding.

Underwater and having the hemispheres unevacuated of water as they are placed together, the hemispheres which are now a sphere, is full of water (think internal atmosphere) and the outside is in a big pool of water (think external atmosphere).

Ok, so now we have to take out the water (atmosphere) from the sphere.
Lets use a bicycle pump.

Ok, so we attach the pump to a valve on the sphere and with the bicycle pump plunger all the way to the bottom of the pump tube, we push up the handle which pushes up the plunger and creates a low pressure as that massive pool of water is pushed back against and in doing so it allows decompressed water (remember air analogy) from the sphere into the tube.

Now the water inside the sphere has expanded but the water allowed to expand from it is now added to the compression externally onto the external of that sphere which crushes it....or tries to.

The reality is, the spheres are being crushed but the resistance inside them is now unequal and cannot resist that crush with the same compressive force it could before the evacuation of some of that pressure.

The more evacuation the more the external crush because there's less resistance to it.
This is why the sphere cannot be easily pushed apart against that crush.

The water has expanded or the water has evacuated?
Your simple and basic description was great but Why not draw a picture wih arrows.
Would clear up any word confusion.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2853 on: December 30, 2018, 05:47:53 AM »
Scepti:

Logical thought and simple experiments prove my point.
...
Gravity being one major answer to any experiment or thought process and yet gravity has never been proven to be anything.
...
It might be full of experiments that pretend to but are not proven to."




Interestingly you present your side as fact and truth...
This is what issue i had with you in the ibcm thread.
Probably you need to add defininitions of "proven" and "experiment" to your dictionary.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2854 on: December 30, 2018, 12:16:05 PM »
The trouble is you're looking at it by your own naked eyesight
No, we can also use x-rays and neutrons, and actually obtain the structure of the substance.
As far as air is concerned, it isn't porous.

Again, stop assuming everyone is as ignorant as you.

Now again:
WHY DO THINGS FALL?
Again, the air "crushing" it should crush it, or hold it together, not make it fall.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2855 on: January 01, 2019, 05:22:05 PM »
Flat Earthers cannot allow themselves to accept Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.
All it takes is:
  • a simple piece of information that is easily demonstrated (and that those old Greeks knew),
  • a rough idea about the size and density of the earth,
  • a rough idea about the strength of rocks and
  • Newton's Laws
to prove that, not only must the earth be near spherical, but it must orbit the sun and not vice-versa.

So Newton, right from Rowbotham's time, has been the flat-earthers' arch-enemy.



Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2856 on: January 01, 2019, 07:10:35 PM »
What happened to jane?
Did scepti dive off the deepend?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2857 on: January 01, 2019, 07:28:19 PM »
Either way we're coming very close to triple digit thread here and still unaswered:

1.   If vacuums dont exist, Why did the feather not flutter?
2.  How do you breath?  Is scuba gear all a conspiracy?

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 7096
  • Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2858 on: January 01, 2019, 10:24:06 PM »
Either way we're coming very close to triple digit thread here and still unaswered:

1.   If vacuums dont exist, Why did the feather not flutter?
2.  How do you breath?  Is scuba gear all a conspiracy?

You forgot one.  It's JB's question but just as important.thin

3.  Why do things fall down?
Rabinoz RIP

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2859 on: January 01, 2019, 10:40:49 PM »
Either way we're coming very close to triple digit thread here and still unaswered:

1.   If vacuums dont exist, Why did the feather not flutter?
2.  How do you breath?  Is scuba gear all a conspiracy?

You forgot one.  It's JB's question but just as important.thin

3.  Why do things fall down?
.

I had it originally but his reality is so skewed it leads into the is-isnt go no where land.
Stick to arguments that can fall under his "verifiable proof" requirenent (regardless the proof double standard or rogue conspiracy theories).

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2860 on: January 02, 2019, 07:01:47 AM »
What happened to jane?
Got bored talking to people who don't want their questions to have answers and will just ignore anything presented.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 7096
  • Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2861 on: January 02, 2019, 07:21:01 AM »
What happened to jane?
Got bored talking to people who don't want their questions to have answers and will just ignore anything presented.

That would require answers to be provided.
Rabinoz RIP

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2862 on: January 02, 2019, 07:36:50 AM »
What happened to jane?
Got bored talking to people who don't want their questions to have answers and will just ignore anything presented.

You proved denpressure? Here are these ground breaking experiments? Can I see your Nobel Prize?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2863 on: January 02, 2019, 08:04:37 AM »
What happened to jane?
Got bored talking to people who don't want their questions to have answers and will just ignore anything presented.

You proved denpressure? Here are these ground breaking experiments? Can I see your Nobel Prize?
Case in point. I don't believe in denpressure, I never claimed it was accurate, I just pointed out that it's stupid to make arguments that objectively don't work because all you do is ruin your own credibility.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2864 on: January 02, 2019, 08:04:57 AM »
What happened to jane?
Got bored talking to people who don't want their questions to have answers and will just ignore anything presented.

You proved denpressure? Here are these ground breaking experiments? Can I see your Nobel Prize?
Read what she said and absorb it.

*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2865 on: January 02, 2019, 08:40:20 AM »
Here is a relevant video to this topic.



Where is the magical force of gravity during all this?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2866 on: January 02, 2019, 10:04:52 AM »
What happened to jane?
Got bored talking to people who don't want their questions to have answers and will just ignore anything presented.

You proved denpressure? Here are these ground breaking experiments? Can I see your Nobel Prize?
Case in point. I don't believe in denpressure, I never claimed it was accurate, I just pointed out that it's stupid to make arguments that objectively don't work because all you do is ruin your own credibility.

Irony...

But yes jane.
I do want my questions answered.

1.   Why the feather doesnt flutter.
2.   Is scuba gear fake news?  Who do we breathe?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2867 on: January 02, 2019, 10:21:52 AM »


1.   Why the feather doesnt flutter.

I already told you why the feather doesn't flutter but I wasn't telling you why under the supposed conditions of that silly pretend vacuum chamber with Brian Cox.

The reason a feather doesn't flutter is due to the very low pressure after evacuation. The molecules are much fewer and obviously much less dense which means the feather can easily overcome the weak resistance of the low pressure molecules which do not create a naked eye visible reaction on the feather But would still create some resistance to it, yet the resistance to that feather would be so minute as to be deemed zero effect by the naked eye at normal speed.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2868 on: January 02, 2019, 11:02:00 AM »
2.   Is scuba gear fake news?  Who do we breathe?
I sincerely hope you don't breathe a 'who.'

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2869 on: January 02, 2019, 11:09:13 AM »


1.   Why the feather doesnt flutter.

I already told you why the feather doesn't flutter but I wasn't telling you why under the supposed conditions of that silly pretend vacuum chamber with Brian Cox.

The reason a feather doesn't flutter is due to the very low pressure after evacuation. The molecules are much fewer and obviously much less dense which means the feather can easily overcome the weak resistance of the low pressure molecules which do not create a naked eye visible reaction on the feather But would still create some resistance to it, yet the resistance to that feather would be so minute as to be deemed zero effect by the naked eye at normal speed.

Maybe i missed it... but im pretty sure you said molecules expanded and there will always be resistnace.
I distinctly recal you insisting vacuums can never be such a thing and there is always resistance therfore the video was bunk.
Hence the reason i kept up with my pump questioning.
If only there were a way to go back and see what was said...
Feel free to bunk my arrogant ass (and not in a sexual way... not that thers anything wrong with that).

Mostly correct there.
Low air resistance.
Feather falls just as fast as the bowling ball.
The chamber is isolated against the atmosphere.
The very same atmosphere you claim pushes us down to the foundation.
How dos the push magically transfer through a near impermeable pressure vessel?

Re: I dont understand that buoyancy is a result of gravity.
« Reply #2870 on: January 02, 2019, 12:02:44 PM »
Here is a relevant video to this topic.
Are you claiming it supports denpressue?
If not, it isn't relevant.


Where is the magical force of gravity during all this?
I assume you are referring the the ball floating?
That is gravity.
The water is still in the container, the container stays on the floor of the chamber.
It sure looks like gravity is there. Just why do you think it is missing?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #2871 on: January 02, 2019, 12:13:58 PM »
Got bored talking to people who don't want their questions to have answers and will just ignore anything presented.
So you stopped talking to Scepti?

The reason a feather doesn't flutter is due to the very low pressure after evacuation.
Which makes sense with the standard model. There are far fewer molecules per unit volume, and thus the feather is less likely to collide with them.
But with your model, the molecules have expanded so still need to get moved around.

Also remember that in your model the air is the sole reason it is falling. So it is clearly significant enough to make it fall (in your model) but then not to make it do what it normally does. Why?

yet the resistance to that feather would be so minute
That it can then be used to measure g (at least under the standard model).

But of course, before we go to something more complex, we should really start with the basics, like why do things fall?
Again, pressure doesn't make thing fall, it crushes them, and in the existence of a pressure gradient pushes them against it (i.e. towards the low pressure region).

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2872 on: January 03, 2019, 08:01:03 AM »
What happened to jane?
Got bored talking to people who don't want their questions to have answers and will just ignore anything presented.

You proved denpressure? Here are these ground breaking experiments? Can I see your Nobel Prize?
Case in point. I don't believe in denpressure, I never claimed it was accurate, I just pointed out that it's stupid to make arguments that objectively don't work because all you do is ruin your own credibility.
If you are going to continue to act superior to everyone at least stop playing sides.

For instance in the middle thread sceptitank keeps demanding evidence and then when itís presented, dismissing it based on his opinion. Then add in this thread he doesnít need to provide evidence and that we all should take his word as absolute.

Have anything to say to him?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2873 on: January 03, 2019, 08:15:07 AM »
Have anything to say to him?
Why would I repeat what a dozen other people are saying?
I only make a post when I'm trying to contribute, rather than hear the sound of my own voice like some people. In this case that's helping explain a model, which would otherwise fall on the shoulders of one person answering a dozen others. The only reason it's so hard is when you don't give a damn about what the answers actually are. Arguments should be conversation-starters, not conversation-enders.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2874 on: January 03, 2019, 09:07:21 AM »
Maybe i missed it... but im pretty sure you said molecules expanded and there will always be resistnace.
Correct they do and there is.

You need to understand how they expand and why they become lower in pressure. The gobstopper layer is the key. It's a good analogy to how it works.
Unfortunately you're too bust trying to play ridicule to understand it all. It's a shame for yourself because you started out appearing intelligent.


Quote from: Themightykabool
I distinctly recal you insisting vacuums can never be such a thing and there is always resistance therfore the video was bunk.
Vacuums inside this cell of Earth are impossible.
Outside of it is anyone's guess, including mine. But class it as a vacuum against what we have when in the potential reality of it all it could be another end product of helium or whatever that basically creates a frozen connection between cells, like frogspawn sort of thing.
However, that's irrelevant up to now.
the basics is what we need to get past and you're failing at that because you keep looking for back slaps from your internet so called friends but aren't appearing to get much of it.
Just a little dig that you deserve to kick you into gear.

Quote from: Themightykabool
The very same atmosphere you claim pushes us down to the foundation.
Pay attention to the letter and you might not have to keep doing this.
Look at the water analogy I gave. Study it and understand it from an atmosphere point of view. You'll understand it better by doing that.

Quote from: Themightykabool
How dos the push magically transfer through a near impermeable pressure vessel?
It doesn't. It doesn't need to.

That's why things expand in a pressure vessel to counteract that evacuation. It's about decompressing in an evacuation chamber.
Pressure is allowed to expand out by the pump pushing against the atmosphere. Seal that off and inside the chamber you have lower pressure but pressure nonetheless.
Anything inside of the chamber will expand to take up the evacuated molecules.

If a balloon with a tiny amount of atmospheric air inside and tied can inflate inside a chamber under evacuation, it tells you that the molecules inside that balloon are expanding to push that balloon into inflation. This only happens because the evacuation of molecules allow it.

It's all about how we displace atmosphere and using a foundation to do so by pushing into it as that displacement is pushed right back against us.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28337
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #2875 on: January 03, 2019, 09:15:29 AM »
Which makes sense with the standard model. There are far fewer molecules per unit volume, and thus the feather is less likely to collide with them.
But with your model, the molecules have expanded so still need to get moved around.
Nothing to do with being less likely to collide with them.
They always collide.
The point is the density of molecules the feather will collide with as opposed to what it did before.

As an instance. Water is more dense than air. Helium and hydrogen are less dense than both...and so on.

Try moving a feather along under water...say 10 feet. Now try moving it alo0ng under 5 feet. Now near the surface. Now above the surface against atmospheric pressure at its densest.
Now higher up on top of a mountain, say. Now imagine doing it another mile higher and then another and so on and so on as the atmosphere becomes less and less dense.

Sooner or later you'll see the difference in the movement of the feather in each scenario until you can't detect that movement but there is no vacuum. Everything is still attached, only split into their less dense attachments.
The gobstopper analogy explains this.


*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 7096
  • Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #2876 on: January 03, 2019, 10:54:23 AM »
Which makes sense with the standard model. There are far fewer molecules per unit volume, and thus the feather is less likely to collide with them.
But with your model, the molecules have expanded so still need to get moved around.
Nothing to do with being less likely to collide with them.
They always collide.
The point is the density of molecules the feather will collide with as opposed to what it did before.

As an instance. Water is more dense than air. Helium and hydrogen are less dense than both...and so on.

Try moving a feather along under water...say 10 feet. Now try moving it alo0ng under 5 feet. Now near the surface. Now above the surface against atmospheric pressure at its densest.
Now higher up on top of a mountain, say. Now imagine doing it another mile higher and then another and so on and so on as the atmosphere becomes less and less dense.

Sooner or later you'll see the difference in the movement of the feather in each scenario until you can't detect that movement but there is no vacuum. Everything is still attached, only split into their less dense attachments.
The gobstopper analogy explains this.

What supporting evidence do you have that molecules are like gobstoppers?  What instrumentation did you use to determine this?
Rabinoz RIP

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #2877 on: January 03, 2019, 11:35:03 AM »
Oh scepti...

I am maintaining my arguements within the denP world wihout reintroduction of vacuums and gravity.
If i point out a discrpeancy is because there is a discrepancy.
If i restate a part of a theory its to confirm to you and me i understand it.

So try to keep up with your own theory...

The skin of the molecule expands out to fill all occupied space in the pressure vessel due to lack of atmospheric pressure that was removed by the pump.

Like a balloon in the depressurized tank.
The air molecules in the balloon are fixed.
But due to lack of crush, they expand out in a growing gobstopper effect.

Each air molecule can be considerd like a balloon.
The skin of the balloon filling up all space.

That said - if incorrect point out the line statment and not a needlessly simple and basic longwinded answer that includes much that was already agreed upon.
Or feel free to deflect because you have no answer.

So.
If molecules grow and expand to fill space - what do you think a molecule is and back to my other question - how are you breathing?

2nd point
Theory states the atmophere pushes and crushes thigs down to the foundation.
Multiple people have pointed out that outside pressure does not affect the downward push.
I gave you a water experiment which you ignored.
We gave you a balloon expeirment.
Feather.
Etcetc
All nothing to do with gravity.
The only thing showing was to isolate the variable of atmopheric pressure.

You just agreed that inside the chmaber can be evacuated to a lower pressure and isolated from outside

Lets give a simple and basic analogy.
You (atmopheric denP) are pushing a ball down onto the floor in your house.
Then, you basically climb up onto the roof and push down on the roof (top of pressure vessel).
You no longer simple in direct contact with the ball.
How is the ball then crushed to the foundation?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #2878 on: January 03, 2019, 11:45:32 AM »
Which makes sense with the standard model. There are far fewer molecules per unit volume, and thus the feather is less likely to collide with them.
But with your model, the molecules have expanded so still need to get moved around.
Nothing to do with being less likely to collide with them.
They always collide.
The point is the density of molecules the feather will collide with as opposed to what it did before.

As an instance. Water is more dense than air. Helium and hydrogen are less dense than both...and so on.

Try moving a feather along under water...say 10 feet. Now try moving it alo0ng under 5 feet. Now near the surface. Now above the surface against atmospheric pressure at its densest.
Now higher up on top of a mountain, say. Now imagine doing it another mile higher and then another and so on and so on as the atmosphere becomes less and less dense.

Sooner or later you'll see the difference in the movement of the feather in each scenario until you can't detect that movement but there is no vacuum. Everything is still attached, only split into their less dense attachments.
The gobstopper analogy explains this.

What supporting evidence do you have that molecules are like gobstoppers?  What instrumentation did you use to determine this?

Go no where question!
Its all in his mind.
No ice core samples.
No ice reflection tests.
No map showing the location of nuclues cell sun on the earth.

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #2879 on: January 03, 2019, 12:00:49 PM »
Which makes sense with the standard model. There are far fewer molecules per unit volume, and thus the feather is less likely to collide with them.
But with your model, the molecules have expanded so still need to get moved around.
Nothing to do with being less likely to collide with them.
They always collide.
The point is the density of molecules the feather will collide with as opposed to what it did before.

As an instance. Water is more dense than air. Helium and hydrogen are less dense than both...and so on.

Try moving a feather along under water...say 10 feet. Now try moving it alo0ng under 5 feet. Now near the surface. Now above the surface against atmospheric pressure at its densest.
Now higher up on top of a mountain, say. Now imagine doing it another mile higher and then another and so on and so on as the atmosphere becomes less and less dense.

Sooner or later you'll see the difference in the movement of the feather in each scenario until you can't detect that movement but there is no vacuum. Everything is still attached, only split into their less dense attachments.
The gobstopper analogy explains this.

What supporting evidence do you have that molecules are like gobstoppers?  What instrumentation did you use to determine this?
Logic and common sense.  Apparently.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.