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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 293729 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3000 on: January 08, 2019, 03:35:55 AM »


That's how people use a vacuum pump. You need a valve to stop air coming back into the bell jar, same as a vacuum desiccator. A vacuum flask does not require a valve.

Chemistry lab 101
Tell me how you get the air out of a glass bell jar.
Explain exactly what happens in order for the bell jar to become lowered in pressure.
Standard science, please look it up and provide a link if you disagree.
Are people like yourself and Sokarul incapable of actually explaining anything from your own heads without using the old " look it up" noqnsense?
Why are you obsessed with wanting random people here to describe things for you to reject when the information is published?
So they use their brains and not simply reference what I'm asking them sling a copy and paste effort out with the answer of " look it up."
When clearly I have a totally different take and yet people like you come out with this nonsense.

You provide virtually nothing except to simply say things like you are in this post.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3001 on: January 08, 2019, 03:41:31 AM »
What is the significance of the word dense in dense mass that you use?  Things do not displace atmosphere, they exist in it.
And this is why you will never move forward in understanding.
It pays to think, not to simply just read text and accept without thought.


For something to exist in water it has to displace the water. Right?
Whether it's a fish or a crab or a plant or a rock, etc, etc, etc.

The same goes for atmosphere.
The dense mass (structure) of any object will displace it's own dense mass of atmosphere, or water.
Very simple to understand but maybe too simple to admit to because to start to admit to it all destroys the globe and all it's nonsensical additions which were and are intended dupe the public.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3002 on: January 08, 2019, 04:03:57 AM »
Hello Sceptimatic,

Completely new here, but have really enjoyed this thread.  I have read and tried to follow all the discussion so far, but am still unable to understand the directionality of your model, i.e. why things go down under denpressure.  Many others also seem unable to figure this out as well.  I know you have tried to explain it a number of times already, but as you seem actually interested in others trying to understand your model, I wonder if you could try one more time, slowly and step by step, so I can see if I can grasp the thinking of your view?
It's all there so if you can't grasp it then reject it as nonsense.

It seems pretty clear to me but then again It's my theory.
Try and get gravity out of your head and then you might have a chance, because gravity is the biggest load of nonsense along with plenty of other nonsense relating to a so called globe and so called space.

Here's something for you. Why do things fall on your Earth? Why down?

If I can't understand your explanation I should just reject it as nonsense?  Seems a strange approach but if that is what you want...

As for your question for me, what I have been taught is that there is an attractive force between mass, and objects exert attractive forces against each other proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  I have no idea why this force arises though.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3003 on: January 08, 2019, 04:08:24 AM »
Try them out yourself and you have ultimate proof as to what I'm saying.
And they prove you are wrong.
Your model is completely unable to explain the observed results.
Of course this isn't really surprising given it can't even explain why things fall.
You say this because you know it proves what I'm saying. It's why you won't do the experiments and nor will others who go on like you.

Quote from: JackBlack
Weight doesn't come into it.
No, it does. If it didn't an object would just fly straight up, quite quickly.
You not liking weight does it magically doesn't exist.
Weight does not exist until you measure dense mass against atmospheric resistance to it on a scale plate to give a reading defined as weight.


Quote from: JackBlack
It's dense mass of the object displacing atmosphere which causes that object to displace water.
No, it displaces the water, not the atmosphere. That is because it is in the water, not the atmosphere.
Really?
So why not explain the sink half full of water scenario.
You know atmosphere is pushing back on that water because that water is displacing it's own dense mass of it which is pushing right back onto it.
The plug is the only thing stopping that water being pushed down that drain hole.

But as you know, that drain hole has air in it before the U bend.
That air and the water in the U bend is not sufficient to arrest that push of above atmosphere on that sink half full of water.
You feel the pressure when you try to lift out the plug.

But here's a real key point to prove it is the atmosphere pushing back on the dense mass of water displacing that atmosphere.

Place a board in that sink with a rubber seal around its edges and push that board as close to the water level in that sink as you can.

Now take off the U bend and poke out the plug from underneath.
If you think it's the water then that water should drain out of the sink all over the cupboard.
But what happens?

Barely any falls.
Why?
Because the atmospheric push back on that water pushing into it has been nullified by the board placed level with the water in that sink leaving no, or little atmospheric pressure above that water under that board because the board is now holding back the real push and taking that resistance.

You know this is correct and you should also know that it is all down to atmospheric pressure no matter what.

Quote from: JackBlack
It's just a more dense gas. It might as well be water. Same thing applies as with water and atmosphere, plus object displacing it.
Yes, some thing applies. Displacing the fluid results in an upwards force due to the pressure gradient.
No magic downwards force from the air.
Displaced fluid obviously has an upward force because atmospheric push ensures that force of the dense mass displaces that fluid to push right back into that atmosphere.
Action/reaction in equal force.

Quote from: JackBlack
Now, can you explain why things fall?
I did and I think I explained it well.

Quote from: JackBlack
Your water analogy, when actually thought about and examined honestly, shows nothing like what you claim. It doesn't provide a magic downwards force but merely shows water creates a pressure gradient (which you don't have an explanation for in the first place) which then pushes outwards against the pressure of the atmosphere/container.
A boat half submerged in water is a classic example of pushing down by atmosphere.
What else can push it down?

Please don't say gravity pulls it down.
Or if you want to you need to explain how it happens by actually using your gravity for purpose.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3004 on: January 08, 2019, 04:20:18 AM »
If I can't understand your explanation I should just reject it as nonsense?  Seems a strange approach but if that is what you want...
Either try and understand it and stop using the old " I can't understand why down" carry on or don't bother me.
Your choice. I'm happy to see what you've took onboard to see where I can possibly go from that point.

Over to you.

Quote from: sobchak
As for your question for me, what I have been taught is that there is an attractive force between mass, and objects exert attractive forces against each other proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  I have no idea why this force arises though.
Yet you stick to it like a limpet as some kind of knowledge.
You also know by clear logic that mass does not attract mass unless it's a simple " look I've dropped a ball and it fell to Earth." Or " place some mass on a floor and have mas on a pivot move towards that mass over time.
A ball bearing the size of a pea will not roll towards a mountain or a ship or any other mass unless it's a magnet.



*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3005 on: January 08, 2019, 04:23:02 AM »
Another 100 page denpressure thread.  Well done guys!  I'm proud.   :-*
I'm keeping it much more compact than that. Only 60 pages for me.
But still, so many pages and he can't even explain a simple thing like why do objects fall.

He should have just stuck with the simpler FE idea of "things just fall". It would have made much more sense.
That's the global nonsense. Things just fall because of an unknown force called gravity that was made up to cater for all the magical unexplainable stuff. Just gravity it all and problem solved....or so they think/thought.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3006 on: January 08, 2019, 05:33:24 AM »
Either try and understand it and stop using the old " I can't understand why down" carry on or don't bother me.
Your choice. I'm happy to see what you've took onboard to see where I can possibly go from that point.

Over to you.

I am trying to understand it, which is why I am asking you to explain it slowly step by step, but if it is too much of a bother, I'll leave you alone as you request. 

I can follow your model conjecture that an object displaces the fluid it is in, and when is against some foundation, this displacement of fluid causes a pressure in the fluid that results in holding the object against the foundation.  Where I get lost is when the object is not resting on a foundation, say for example hanging from a string.   Why does your model have the pressure from the displaced fluid producing a net downward force in this case? 

Quote
Yet you stick to it like a limpet as some kind of knowledge.
You also know by clear logic that mass does not attract mass unless it's a simple " look I've dropped a ball and it fell to Earth." Or " place some mass on a floor and have mas on a pivot move towards that mass over time.

Sure, while these and other observations are completely consistent with the model that mass attracts mass with a force proportional to the products of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, other conceptual frameworks could possibly have the same or better explanatory power for them.

Quote
A ball bearing the size of a pea will not roll towards a mountain or a ship or any other mass unless it's a magnet.

I agree but am confused, is there a reason I would expect a ball bearing the size of a pea to roll towards a ship or a mountain? 

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3007 on: January 08, 2019, 07:41:34 AM »

For something to exist in water it has to displace the water. Right?
Whether it's a fish or a crab or a plant or a rock, etc, etc, etc.

The same goes for atmosphere.
The dense mass (structure) of any object will displace it's own dense mass of atmosphere, or water.
Very simple to understand but maybe too simple to admit to because to start to admit to it all destroys the globe and all it's nonsensical additions which were and are intended dupe the public.

May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
 
In your model, without gravity what prevents all fluids of high density expanding and fluids of low density being compressed, until all fluids reach a uniform density and pressure?


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3008 on: January 08, 2019, 08:28:20 AM »
May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
 
You can suggest what you like, but scepti has developed his own nomenclature.  He's invented lots of new definitions and, more confusingly, just swapped some round.

So, what he calls "density" or even "dense mass" is what we would call "volume".  Though sometimes it means what we would refer to as "mass".  Or neither.  It's not always clear.

Not sure why he has done this.  Could be he is intentionally trying to obscure the fact he's talking rubbish, or it could be he's someone's LARPing persona and she is just seeing how far they can take the piss and still have people playing along.


Good luck.
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.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3009 on: January 08, 2019, 09:34:49 AM »
Am I the only person who thinks this entire thread is about nothing more than typing practice?

101 pages of text wall, and you're still at square one!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3010 on: January 08, 2019, 10:26:33 AM »


In this video the more dense  object sinks



The cans are the same size, both fully submersed, displacing the same amount of water...  How does this work with den pressure ? 

Also, you ignored the experiments of weighing items in a near vacuum.



That video displays interesting characteristics of mass and density and weight in a near vacuum.  Why would the packing peanuts increase in weight inside a vacuum?   




Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3011 on: January 08, 2019, 10:35:39 AM »
Scepti says weight depends on the current atmospheric pressure. Correct?

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3012 on: January 08, 2019, 11:46:16 AM »
Scepti says weight depends on the current atmospheric pressure. Correct?

Thatís my point...  i can see the den pressure explanation of decreases weight inside of a vacuum.  I disagree with it.  The packing peanuts are interesting...  gaining weight with less atmosphere... 

The other video was the weight of the vacuum itself which was completely ignored clearly displaying the vacuum weighed less after air removed.  How do you have a vacuum that weighs less when most air is removed and packing peanuts increasing in weight in near vacuum with den pressure?  Why would some things weigh more and other things weigh less under near vacuum??

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3013 on: January 08, 2019, 01:32:09 PM »
Scepti says weight depends on the current atmospheric pressure. Correct?

Thatís my point...  i can see the den pressure explanation of decreases weight inside of a vacuum.  I disagree with it.  The packing peanuts are interesting...  gaining weight with less atmosphere... 

The other video was the weight of the vacuum itself which was completely ignored clearly displaying the vacuum weighed less after air removed.  How do you have a vacuum that weighs less when most air is removed and packing peanuts increasing in weight in near vacuum with den pressure?  Why would some things weigh more and other things weigh less under near vacuum??

Some time ago I proposed a 'test' of denpressure based on just this - that loss of buoyancy means things weigh more when the surrounding pressure is reduced. Scepti agreed denpressure would not predict this. I've not done the test though!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68654.msg1854974#msg1854974

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3014 on: January 08, 2019, 01:37:28 PM »
By all means view everything I say as a failure.
Not everything, just all your attempts at an explanation, as you are yet to actually explain why things fall down.

All you're doing is cheating yourself from finding the truth in favour of indoctrinated theories/duping.
No, that would be if I accepted your nonsense.

I get that people like yourself like to live off numbers and calculations. I get that you always want formulas and equations to allow you to understand something.
It isn't to understand. It is to test and to make use of it.
A vague pile of nonsense with a bunch of hand waving can pretend to match anything.
But that makes it almost impossible to test and entirely useless.

If you have formulas, you can then predict things. It makes it useful. It also allows much easier testing.

I play by my own rules. It's called basic logic and the use of experimentation from my side.
You certainly play by your own rules, but that definitely doesn't involve logic or experiment.
Experiments and simple logic continually refute you.

I ask you and others to use that line of thought. It appears you won't or can't seen to grasp basic stuff.
Or, I know this might sound insane to you, but maybe we do use logic and experiment and find your nonsense to be nothing more than a massive pile of self contradictory nonsense?

It's all there so if you can't grasp it then reject it as nonsense.
Well if that is the case, rejecting it as nonsense is the rational thing to do as you are yet to provide any justification for the directionality.

[GRAVITY]
Stop with the distractions. If you want to discuss gravity do it on another thread.
Ignoring gravity just means we don't have an alternative. It doesn't mean your nonsense works. And your nonsense, even if accepted, works just as well on a sphere.

So they use their brains and not simply reference what I'm asking them sling a copy and paste effort out with the answer of " look it up."
So pretty much to waste their time and avoid answering any questions?
You have shown that you don't care. So the appropriate response is to tell you to look it up.

When clearly I have a totally different take and yet people like you come out with this nonsense.
Yes, you clearly have a different take, which is clearly nonsense.
You are the one coming up with nonsense here.

It pays to think, not to simply just read text and accept without thought.
And we do think, which is why we don't just accept your nonsense.

The dense mass (structure) of any object will displace it's own dense mass of atmosphere, or water.
Nope. It displaces its volume. There is no way for it to magically displace its own mass.
The only time it does that is when it is neutrally buoyant, e.g. water, in water will displace its own mass of water, and objects floating on the interface between water and air will displace their own mass of water and air.

You say this because you know it proves what I'm saying.
No. I say it because I know it disproves you. If I knew it proved what you were saying I would say so.

It's why you won't do the experiments and nor will others who go on like you.
No, even the results you have reported show your nonsense to be wrong.
I have done some of the experiments and they also show you are wrong.
You are the one who refuses to do experiments.

Weight does not exist until you measure
If that was true, everything would float in the air until they were put on a scale.
Weight is the downwards force acting on an object. Without that the object would not move down unless they are pushed by people or the like. With some contexts it includes the contribution from buoyancy and the centrifugal force. In other contexts it includes one but not the other, and in others it includes neither.
It doesn't magically only exist when measured.

dense mass against atmospheric resistance to it on a scale plate to give a reading defined as weight.
Nope. That would be a reading of pressure if anything, not weight.

So why not explain the sink half full of water scenario.
What "sink half full" scenario?
Do you mean with your plug, if so, I have explained that. It shows you are wrong.

But here's a real key point to prove it is the atmosphere pushing back on the dense mass of water displacing that atmosphere.
That is part of the key point to prove. As well as proving it is the atmosphere pushing it, you also need to prove the directionality.
But the experiment when conducted properly (rather than just a single run which provides no information) shows that isn't the case at all and instead it is the water creating this pressure, not the atmosphere and it can act in any direction.
Again, make it basically no water, you can then easily remove the plug. Instead change the water to mercury and it is even harder. This shows it isn't the atmosphere. Put the plug on the side, or in the L setup described above and now it is hard to push the plug sideways or down, showing the atmosphere isn't magically pushing down.

Place a board in that sink with a rubber seal around its edges and push that board as close to the water level in that sink as you can.
Now take off the U bend and poke out the plug from underneath.
And this is another great example of it not being the air. If it was the air it would now be easy to push the plug out, but it isn't unless you create a partial vacuum above the water.

If you think it's the water then that water should drain out of the sink all over the cupboard.
But what happens?
Well unless you are using a tiny drain (where then you run into issues of surface tension and the water dropping down creating a partial vacuum and thus not falling), it all falls.

Rather than going to all this effort, we can do something much simpler:
Get a glass, fill it with water to the brim, get a flat piece of plastic and put it over the top of the glass.
Now flip the glass over and remove the plastic.
According to you, the water should remain in the glass. But what happens? It all falls out.
(If you are reliant upon the plug being pushed up, then use a bottle instead with a makeshift plug, the same thing happens).

We have already had this conversation before and you failed to explain the observed results.
Your model predicts the water remains in the glass while reality has it fall out.
You predict drink bottles are almost entirely useless.

You know this is correct and you should also know that it is all down to atmospheric pressure no matter what.
The above shows you are wrong. I know you are wrong.


Displaced fluid obviously has an upward force because atmospheric push ensures that force of the dense mass displaces that fluid to push right back into that atmosphere.
Action/reaction in equal force.
That make no sense at all.
From what I think you are trying to say, if that was the case all objects would float.
Instead, the pressure gradient in the fluid results in an upwards force.
This even applies to gases, including the atmosphere.

I did and I think I explained it well.
You are yet to explain it. You thinking you did doesn't mean you did.
You still have the atmosphere magically pushing down, for no reason at all, even through solid objects.

A boat half submerged in water is a classic example of pushing down by atmosphere.
No it isn't. It is a rare case.
A classic example would need to be an object in mid-air, surrounded by air, yet still magically pushed down.

What else can push it down?
That is the question for you. We know it isn't the atmosphere (at least when it is out of water, or completely in water).
Stop with the distractions. If you want to discuss alternative models, make a thread for it.

Either try and understand it and stop using the old " I can't understand why down" carry on
People try and understand. But you are yet to provide a justification for the "why down" part, so people continue to ask.


Now, care to try explaining why things fall?
Again, we know it isn't the atmosphere, as that pushes in all directions. This means an object in midair will be pushed from all directions by the air. Due to the pressure gradient naturally existing in air and other fluids, this will result in a slight net upwards force on the object from the atmosphere, not down. In order for it to be pushed down, it needs a greater pressure from above than below.
We know it is not due to more atmosphere above the object than below, because if we take into an isolated system and have it at the top, it still falls down even though there is more accessible atmosphere below.
We know it is not due to moving it away from the ground, as if we move it away from a wall it isn't pushed back into it.

Again, don't bother with pathetic distractions of asking us how it works with mainstream science. This is a thread to discuss your model. If you wish to discuss other models, start a new thread.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3015 on: January 08, 2019, 02:49:56 PM »
Either try and understand it and stop using the old " I can't understand why down" carry on or don't bother me.
Your choice. I'm happy to see what you've took onboard to see where I can possibly go from that point.

Over to you.

I am trying to understand it, which is why I am asking you to explain it slowly step by step, but if it is too much of a bother, I'll leave you alone as you request. 

I can follow your model conjecture that an object displaces the fluid it is in, and when is against some foundation, this displacement of fluid causes a pressure in the fluid that results in holding the object against the foundation.  Where I get lost is when the object is not resting on a foundation, say for example hanging from a string.   Why does your model have the pressure from the displaced fluid producing a net downward force in this case?


The object has to be raised to allow it to be hung by a string. It takes energy to raise it. It still displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere. It's still compressing that atmosphere by it's own dense mass.

The string is not on a sky hook, it has to be attached to something that can hold the string and that object holding that string must have a foundation.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3016 on: January 08, 2019, 02:58:20 PM »
May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
Nope. An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The volume would be classed as porosity on top of the actual porosity in the actual structure itself, no matter how tiny.
The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.



 
Quote from: Teslaite
In your model, without gravity what prevents all fluids of high density expanding and fluids of low density being compressed, until all fluids reach a uniform density and pressure?
Molecular Stacking.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3017 on: January 08, 2019, 03:03:37 PM »
Either try and understand it and stop using the old " I can't understand why down" carry on or don't bother me.
Your choice. I'm happy to see what you've took onboard to see where I can possibly go from that point.

Over to you.

I am trying to understand it, which is why I am asking you to explain it slowly step by step, but if it is too much of a bother, I'll leave you alone as you request. 

I can follow your model conjecture that an object displaces the fluid it is in, and when is against some foundation, this displacement of fluid causes a pressure in the fluid that results in holding the object against the foundation.  Where I get lost is when the object is not resting on a foundation, say for example hanging from a string.   Why does your model have the pressure from the displaced fluid producing a net downward force in this case?


The object has to be raised to allow it to be hung by a string. It takes energy to raise it. It still displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere. It's still compressing that atmosphere by it's own dense mass.

The string is not on a sky hook, it has to be attached to something that can hold the string and that object holding that string must have a foundation.
Objects compressing the atmosphere makes no sense.  How does this occur?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3018 on: January 08, 2019, 03:31:41 PM »


In this video the more dense  object sinks



The cans are the same size, both fully submersed, displacing the same amount of water...  How does this work with den pressure ? 
It's about the volume inside each can.
It's fine filling the cans with 12 fluid oz but it's the porosity of each liquid which determines whether it is squeezed down or squeezed up.
Whichever can resists that crushing force, it will float due to its liquid porosity being much harder to compress through the can wall.. Whichever can has the most porosity in the liquid, that can is able to be compressed much easier and crushed down.

Quote from: JCM
Also, you ignored the experiments of weighing items in a near vacuum.



That video displays interesting characteristics of mass and density and weight in a near vacuum.  Why would the packing peanuts increase in weight inside a vacuum?
The scale calibration goes off.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3019 on: January 08, 2019, 04:04:51 PM »
The dense mass (structure) of any object will displace it's own dense mass of atmosphere, or water.
Nope. It displaces its volume. There is no way for it to magically displace its own mass.
The only time it does that is when it is neutrally buoyant, e.g. water, in water will displace its own mass of water, and objects floating on the interface between water and air will displace their own mass of water and air.
How in the hell can something displace its own volume?
The volume of any object already holds the fluid/atmosphere it is already in. It's the actual structure that displaces the fluid/atmosphere and gives a reading of that displacement on a man made scale plate for measurement.



Quote from: JackBlack
Weight does not exist until you measure
If that was true, everything would float in the air until they were put on a scale.
So, if scales were not invented then things would simply float. Do you see how silly that is?
Weight does not exist unless you can measure the dense mass displacement of an object against the atmosphere.

Quote from: JackBlack
dense mass against atmospheric resistance to it on a scale plate to give a reading defined as weight.
Nope. That would be a reading of pressure if anything, not weight.
Weight measurement is pressure upon dense mass by displacement of atmosphere.


Quote from: JackBlack
Rather than going to all this effort, we can do something much simpler:
Get a glass, fill it with water to the brim, get a flat piece of plastic and put it over the top of the glass.
Now flip the glass over and remove the plastic.
According to you, the water should remain in the glass. But what happens? It all falls out.
No, not according to me at all.
I've never once said that.
Making up stuff will not help you.


Quote from: JackBlack
Displaced fluid obviously has an upward force because atmospheric push ensures that force of the dense mass displaces that fluid to push right back into that atmosphere.
Action/reaction in equal force.
That make no sense at all.
From what I think you are trying to say, if that was the case all objects would float.

Only if they have enough volume of atmosphere.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3020 on: January 08, 2019, 04:06:21 PM »


In this video the more dense  object sinks



The cans are the same size, both fully submersed, displacing the same amount of water...  How does this work with den pressure ? 
It's about the volume inside each can.
It's fine filling the cans with 12 fluid oz but it's the porosity of each liquid which determines whether it is squeezed down or squeezed up.
Whichever can resists that crushing force, it will float due to its liquid porosity being much harder to compress through the can wall.. Whichever can has the most porosity in the liquid, that can is able to be compressed much easier and crushed down.

Quote from: JCM
Also, you ignored the experiments of weighing items in a near vacuum.



That video displays interesting characteristics of mass and density and weight in a near vacuum.  Why would the packing peanuts increase in weight inside a vacuum?
The scale calibration goes off.
Please define porosity, what units?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3021 on: January 08, 2019, 04:10:24 PM »
Objects compressing the atmosphere makes no sense.  How does this occur?
After all this time and you are asking this question?


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3022 on: January 08, 2019, 04:14:37 PM »


In this video the more dense  object sinks



The cans are the same size, both fully submersed, displacing the same amount of water...  How does this work with den pressure ? 
It's about the volume inside each can.
It's fine filling the cans with 12 fluid oz but it's the porosity of each liquid which determines whether it is squeezed down or squeezed up.
Whichever can resists that crushing force, it will float due to its liquid porosity being much harder to compress through the can wall.. Whichever can has the most porosity in the liquid, that can is able to be compressed much easier and crushed down.

Quote from: JCM
Also, you ignored the experiments of weighing items in a near vacuum.



That video displays interesting characteristics of mass and density and weight in a near vacuum.  Why would the packing peanuts increase in weight inside a vacuum?
The scale calibration goes off.
Please define porosity, what units?
Never mind what units.
Porosity is the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into its mass.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3023 on: January 08, 2019, 04:30:43 PM »
May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
Nope. An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The volume would be classed as porosity on top of the actual porosity in the actual structure itself, no matter how tiny.
The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.



 
Quote from: Teslaite
In your model, without gravity what prevents all fluids of high density expanding and fluids of low density being compressed, until all fluids reach a uniform density and pressure?
Molecular Stacking.

OK, we use a balance scale, like the scale of justice.
We have a cubic centimeter of gold.
We have a cubic centimeter of steel.
The cubes displace the same amount of atmosphere. Yes, no?
Placing the gold on the right side.
Placing the steel on the left side.
What will happen?
The scale will tilt to the right side.

test the cube your have a beaker filled to the brim, carefully place, the cube in water and measure its displacement.
Do this for both cubes and you will see the water displaced is the same.
They displace the same amount of water, why is the wight different?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3024 on: January 08, 2019, 06:25:16 PM »
The object has to be raised to allow it to be hung by a string.
So what?
You have provided no basis for why that is an issue.
We can also have some fun and do it quite indirectly, such as having water boil, where it takes energy to boil it, but then it naturally rises without additional energy input and then it condenses and falls.

The string is not on a sky hook, it has to be attached to something that can hold the string and that object holding that string must have a foundation.
Sure it can be. Attach it to a large balloon. No foundation there.

But you are ignoring the main issue.
Most people will accept the air pushes an object down when the object is only exposed to the air on top. That is because now the pressure is acting downwards on the top surface only.
This even applies when you have the sides exposed as well, because the sideways forces cancel.
But when you hang in on a string, you no longer have the air pushing down. The entire bottom surface is exposed and thus the air interacting there pushes it up.
Now you have a region at the top covered (depending on how the string is attached), which means you should get a net upwards push. But instead it goes down. Why?
You can also place an object up against a wall, where now the air pushes the object into the wall, but that doesn't take extra energy to pull it away. So it clearly isn't air pressure.

An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The only way for it to not do that, is for it to displace less by not being entirely in it.

The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.
That isn't a fact. That is a pile of nonsense.
"Atmospheric resistance" is based upon pressure which acts upon area, not volume.
The only way this factors into weight is buoyancy.
You are using completley circular reasoning.

Molecular Stacking.
Spouting 2 words does nothing.
Can you provide an explanation for why these thigns magically stack?

Whichever can resists that crushing force, it will float due to its liquid porosity being much harder to compress through the can wall.. Whichever can has the most porosity in the liquid, that can is able to be compressed much easier and crushed down.
Again, this makes no sense.
Whatever can resist the crushing force wont be crushed. Whatever can't will be crushed. That provides no reason to go up or down.
Pressure crushing things crushes them, not magically pushes them down.

The scale calibration goes off.
The scale calibration has nothing to do with the atmosphere, so why would it magically go off?

How in the hell can something displace its own volume?
It is quite simple. The object does not physically allow things to occupy the same volume. This is primarily through electrostatic interactions.
Thus if you push something into a fluid, the fluid needs to move out of the way. Either it will move, or you will be unable to push the object in.

The volume of any object already holds the fluid/atmosphere it is already in.
You really seem to love baselssly asserting this BS, but you are yet to show that.
If this was the case, when you lower an object into water, it would just get water inside it, and the water level wouldn't change. But we know this is garbage as when we lower an object into water, the water level goes up. In fact, we can even measure how much it goes up, and note that it corresponds exactly to the volume of the object.

So, if scales were not invented then things would simply float. Do you see how silly that is?
Yes, it is quite silly, isn't it.
So why do promote such BS.
Weight exists independent of measurement of weight.
Even before scales existed, things still had weight.


Weight measurement is pressure upon dense mass by displacement of atmosphere.
Again, pure BS. All the evidence shows the only way pressure comes into weight is through the buoant force.

Displacing a fluid makes things weigh less, not more.

No, not according to me at all.
I've never once said that.
I know you never said that exact thing, because it shows your model to be pure garbage.
However, it follows the exact same line of reasoning.
You set up a situation where you have water, without atmosphere contacting it above it, with an opening below.
According to you (not you describing this exact situation, but from what you have said regarding other things), with weight coming from the atmosphere pushing it down, the water should not fall and should instead remain inside the glass indifinately until there is air introduced above the water inside the glass. Yet falls.
This shows your model to be garabge.

Why should water in a sink, with the only opening being the plug be magically different to water in an upside down glass or bottle with the only opening being on the bottom?


The only possible escape is to claim that even without atmosphere above it pushing it down, the atmosphere is still somehow pushing it down and thus the experiment wouldn't prove your model at all and instead it just raises more questions of how the atmosphere pushes down, without the atmosphere being above to push down.

Requiring exact setups and only discussing them and pretending variations which would follow the same reaosning is magically not what you are claiming wont help you at all.

Only if they have enough volume of atmosphere.
Nope. Always.
Remember, you claim they only fall due to displacing atmosphere.
And you have an equal and opposite reaction.
So it balances. In order to be different you would need to accept that weight is not tied to the atmosphere.

Never mind what units.
Porosity is the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into its mass.
So fantasy nonsense which just magically gives mass.
Why can this never be measured?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3025 on: January 08, 2019, 06:34:23 PM »
Porosity is the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into its mass.
You do not get to define the meaning of words!
Quote
porosity
noun
1.  the state or condition of being porous
2.  geology
     the ratio of the volume of space to the total volume of a rock
Quote
porous
1. adjective
     Something that is porous has many small holes in it, which water and air can pass through.
Metals, in particular have an extremely low porosity so claiming weight is due to "the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into its mass" cannot be true.

One cubic metre of air has a mass of about 1.224 kg and cubic metre of steel has a mass of up to 8050 kg.
So claiming that "the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into" steel somehow explains weight is obviously ridiculous.

If you disagree with any of these values please show where you have done experiments to prove otherwise.

I do realise,  however, that I should take Samuel Clemens' advice on arguing ;).

*

Stash

  • 8613
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3026 on: January 08, 2019, 08:23:46 PM »
Weight measurement is pressure upon dense mass by displacement of atmosphere.
Again, pure BS. All the evidence shows the only way pressure comes into weight is through the buoant force.

Displacing a fluid makes things weigh less, not more.

Isn't this the crux of the denpressure biscuit right here (see bolded). I think this is what everyone has been repeatedly asking: Why is the displaced atmosphere only pressuring 'down'?
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3027 on: January 08, 2019, 11:31:05 PM »
OK, we use a balance scale, like the scale of justice.
We have a cubic centimeter of gold.
We have a cubic centimeter of steel.
The cubes displace the same amount of atmosphere. Yes, no?
No.


Quote from: MouseWalker
Placing the gold on the right side.
Placing the steel on the left side.
What will happen?
The scale will tilt to the right side.
Yep.

Quote from: MouseWalker
test the cube your have a beaker filled to the brim, carefully place, the cube in water and measure its displacement.
Do this for both cubes and you will see the water displaced is the same.
Initially yes.
Structure of both cubes is the key and how they compress to actually be squeezed of their trapped atmosphere.

The depth at which both blocks would descend to would be the key to having their structures compressed enough to release their trapped atmosphere.

Quote from: MouseWalker
They displace the same amount of water, why is the wight different?
Only in shallow water do they displace what is believed to be the same amount.
In actual reality the gold would displace more but it would be almost undetectable in a shallow container.
The structure that makes up gold is far denser due to less trapped atmosphere, than the steel block which has much more trapped atmosphere inside much larger structural make up.


To give you an idea and as an analogy on a large scale. Imagine those blocks as buildings and we are merely micro bedbug size.
Looking at the gold and steel block from that vantage point you would see the gold as having tiny openings, let's say head height and body width.
In the steel one it would be like walking into a church. Much larger than height openings and much wider.


At this moment in time it's the best analogy I can think of.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3028 on: January 09, 2019, 12:11:56 AM »
No.
Care to prove that they don't?
All the evidence indicates that they do.
There isn't even any reason for them to displace different amounts.

Initially yes.
No, not just initially. It doesn't matter how long you leave it there, the same volume is displaced.

Structure of both cubes is the key
No it isn't.
We can have materials with the same internal structure, same apparent volume, but completely different weight.
We can have materials with more open structures, which weigh more.
Rather than just leaving it as gold and steel, we can make it gold, iron and aluminium.
Gold and iron are both FCC structures and thus have basically the same structure and thus should fit the same amount of air (assuming the same density of the magic air filling the voids). Iron has a BCC structure, making it more open, and thus it should allow more air in, but aluminium weighs the least, not iron, and then gold weighs the most.

and how they compress to actually be squeezed of their trapped atmosphere.
But with you fantasy, why would squeezing them do anything other than compress the trapped atmosphere?
You have magic air which can expand and contract. Surely that means any amount of air can fit inside the structure?

The depth at which both blocks would descend to would be the key to having their structures compressed enough to release their trapped atmosphere.
Air isn't released when they sink.

Only in shallow water do they displace what is believed to be the same amount.
All the evidence indicates they displace the same amount.

In actual reality the gold would displace more but it would be almost undetectable in a shallow container.
So an amount so insignificant that it has no bearing on the weight of the substance.
Also, this tiny difference due to the pressure doesn't help you either as there is no correlation between that and weight.

The structure that makes up gold is far denser due to less trapped atmosphere, than the steel block which has much more trapped atmosphere inside much larger structural make up.
Neither have trapped atmosphere. And in your fantasy land, there is no reason for them to have different amounts.

At this moment in time it's the best analogy I can think of.
And it is completely false and makes no sense.
Unlike your analogy, were we would be objects of fixed size, in your fantasy land we would expand and touch such that even the church would look tiny.

Now, care to explain why things fall?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3029 on: January 09, 2019, 12:38:22 AM »
Quote
The object has to be raised to allow it to be hung by a string. It takes energy to raise it. It still displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere. It's still compressing that atmosphere by it's own dense mass.

The string is not on a sky hook, it has to be attached to something that can hold the string and that object holding that string must have a foundation.

Hi Sceptimatic,

I can follow that the object had to get on this string somehow, this makes sense.   I can follow that energy went into the system to get it there.  I also can follow that in your concept, it is still compressing the atmosphere by its own dense mass after it is hanging there, and this should generate a pressure on the object.  I can follow that this string is attached to a foundation somewhere. 

However, I cant seem to figure out how the above statements logically lead to a downward force on the string.  Why does the pressure on the object from displaced fluid result in a net directional force in your conceptual model?

I dont have to belabor the point and continue to repeat the question if you don't have a clear step by step explanation, so if you would prefer I will just back out of the discussion.  Its your conceptual model and you are of course welcome to it in whatever form it is in.  I'm just trying to understand your idea as well as I can with the information provided.